Voting and Social Inclusion in Sweden

Three decades ago, Sweden extended municipal and provincial voting privileges to non‐citizen residents arguing that it would increase political influence, interest and self‐esteem among foreign citizens. The aim of this paper is to explore the act of voting as a measure of social inclusion by comparing voting propensities of immigrants (people born outside Sweden), their descendants (born in Sweden) and native Swedish citizens (those who have citizenship through jus sanguine) while controlling for a range of socio‐economic, demographic characteristics, contextual factors and a set of “hard” and “soft” social inclusion related variables. In particular we focus on the impact of citizenship acquisition ‐‐ does the symbolic act of attaining citizenship result in increased voting participation on the part of Swedish residents who are not citizens by birth. We use the Swedish 2006 electoral survey matched to registry data from Statistics Sweden to assess the correlates of voting by Swedish‐born and immigrant residents. Using instrumental variable regressions we estimate the impact of citizenship acquisition. We find that acquisition of citizenship makes a real difference to the probability of voting. Immigrants who naturalise are in general far more likely to vote than those who do not.     

Does Anti‐Hispanic Bias Motivate Opposition to Non‐English Languages?*

Contemporary political debates about language policy in the United States focus on three primary policy issues: bilingual education in public schools, English‐only legislation, and the access of non‐English speaking citizens to political rights. Using the “Multi‐Ethnic United States” module from the 2000 General Social Survey (GSS), this article tests multiple attitudinal, behavioral, demographic, and contextual hypotheses for how Anglos and African Americans view bilingual policy issues. We examine the role of linguistic contact, self‐interest, group threat, and discriminatory views of Latinos, finding that the latter—as measured by the “Three Ds” (Derogation, Disrespect, and Distance)—are the strongest predictors of attitudes toward bilingualism. Distance (social distance from Latinos) is consistently significant, disrespect (doubts about Latino contributions to the United States.) is mostly significant, and derogation (Latino stereotypes) is occasionally significant. Also, political ideology and knowledge of a non‐English language play important roles in the formation of favorable bilingualism opinions. However, the self‐interest and group threat variables were largely insignificant. Taken together, these findings indicate the importance of understanding how policy views may be structured by opinions about out‐group individuals and cultures. Language can serve as a proxy for immigrants themselves, as negative attitudes toward Latinos are associated with negative attitudes toward bilingualism.     

A Tale of Two Counties: Natives’ Opinions Toward Immigration in North Carolina1

This article compares native residents’ opinions and perceptions regarding immigration using a representative survey from a pair of matched North Carolina counties – one that experienced recent growth of its foreign-born population and one that did not. Drawing from several theoretical perspectives, including group threat, contact theory, and symbolic politics, we formulate and empirically evaluate several hypotheses. Results provide limited evidence that competition and threat influence formation of opinions about immigration, with modest support for claims that parents with school-aged children harbor more negative views of immigration than their childless counterparts. Except for residents in precarious economic situations, these negative opinions appear unrelated to the immigrant composition of the community. Claims that the media promotes negative views of immigration receive limited support, but this relationship is unrelated to the volume of local immigration. Finally, sustained contacts with foreign-born residents outside work environments are associated with positive views of immigration, but superficial contacts appear to be conducive to anti-immigration sentiments. Political orientation, educational attainment, and indicators of respondents’ tolerance for diversity explain most of the difference between the two counties in overall support for immigration.     

Documented,Undocumented, and Liminally Legal: Legal Status During the Transition to Adulthood for 1.5‐Generation Brazilian Immigrants

This article deconstructs the “illegal–legal” binary that characterizes much immigration scholarship. Using in‐depth interviews with 42 1.5‐generation Brazilian immigrants in young adulthood, I find that respondents discuss a distinct hierarchy with four categories of legal membership—undocumented, liminal legality, lawful permanent resident (LPR), and citizen—that affect their daily lives and incorporation. Liminally legal and LPR statuses in particular challenge this illegal–legal dichotomy. Liminal legality is an “in‐between” status in which immigrants possess social security numbers and work permits but have no guarantee of eventual citizenship. Without opportunities to regularize their status, both undocumented and liminally legal young adults face increased vulnerabilities to poverty and social exclusion. Liminally legal youth, however, are in better positions than their undocumented peers during early adulthood because of state‐delimited rights associated with their legal status.     

Experiencing ‘Illegality’ as a Family? Immigration Enforcement,Social Policies,and Discourses Targeting Mexican Mixed‐Status Families

Mexican mixed‐status families have been front and center in embroiled national debates about the place of undocumented immigrants and their citizen family members in this country. These families face unique obstacles, including possible family fragmentation caused by deportation, challenges to birthright citizenship, and they are often targeted by anti‐immigrant elected officials and political pundits that perpetuate a racialized discourse that casts even citizen children in these families as an abomination of US citizenship. Therefore, “illegality” may be a familial experience that can be endured by citizens and non‐citizens alike. Despite their unique vulnerabilities, researchers know very little about how mixed‐status families experience belonging in the country while managing possible tensions and inequalities shaped by immigration status. In this article, I review the research on punitive immigration enforcement and the scholarship on social policies and discourse targeting mixed‐status families. I conclude by reviewing new directions in sociological research and suggest avenues for research that may examine mixed‐status families' subjectivities, belonging, and negotiations of family relationships.     

Non‐Citizen Mexican Youth in US Higher Education: A Closer Look at the Relationship between State Tuition Policies and College Enrollment

This paper examines state policies that extend or deny in‐state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Using the Current Population Survey (1997–2010), we assess changes in college enrollment among Mexican‐born non‐citizens — a proxy for the undocumented population. In contrast to previous analyses, we find that policies extending in‐state tuition to undocumented youth do not directly affect rates of college enrollment. However, we find that Mexican‐born non‐citizen youth residing in states that deny in‐state tuition have a 12.1 percentage point lower probability of being enrolled in college than their peers living in states with no such policies.     

Sexual Orientation Differences in Whites’ Racial Attitudes

Historical and anecdotal accounts present a contradictory image of predominantly white lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ ) communities in the United States: a unique celebration of racial and other forms of diversity, yet pervasive racial discrimination and exclusion that mirrors racism of the broader society. However, no study to date has compared the racial attitudes of white heterosexual and white LGB Americans. Using nationally representative data from the American National Election Survey 2012 Times Series Study, I investigate the effect of sexual orientation on whites’ racial attitudes in the domains of symbolic, color‐blind, and old‐fashioned racism. Compared to white heterosexuals, white LGB people hold more favorable attitudes toward black people, most notably in the domain of symbolic racism. On average, over 40% of sexual orientation gaps in whites’ racial attitudes is explained by white LGB respondents’ more liberal political ideology; their greater awareness of homophobic discrimination explains, on average, one‐fifth of these sexual orientation gaps. These findings suggest that white LGB racial attitudes must be examined at the intersection of their privileged racial and disadvantaged sexual identities.     

Multigenerational Punishment: Shared Experiences of Undocumented Immigration Status Within Mixed‐Status Families

Estimates suggest that approximately 16.6 million people in the United States are members of mixed‐status families composed of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens or documented immigrants. Drawing on interviews with 32 undocumented 1.5‐generation parents, the author explores how immigration laws affect undocumented parents and their citizen children. She finds that U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents often share in the risks and limitations associated with undocumented immigration status. She conceptualizes this phenomenon as multigenerational punishment, a distinct form of legal violence wherein the sanctions intended for a specific population spill over to negatively affect individuals who are not targeted by laws. Though not restricted to familial relationships, multigenerational punishment tends to occur within families because of the strong social ties, sustained day‐to‐day interactions, and dependent relationships found among family members. This sheds light on how laws can further the reproduction of inequality within families and over generations.     

A national probability study of problematic substance use and treatment receipt among Latino caregivers involved with child welfare: The influence of nativity and legal status

The goal of this study was to determine whether differences exist in problematic substance use and receipt of services by nativity (U.S. born, foreign born) and legal status (U.S. citizen, legal resident, undocumented) among Latino parents reported for child abuse and neglect. We used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being II and weighted bivariate chi-square tests to compare rates of problematic substance use and services receipt by nativity and legal status. Weighted logistic regression models estimated the effect of immigrant status on the odds of service receipt. Rates of problematic substance use were not significantly different by nativity or legal status. Service receipt was significantly lower for foreign-born (2.1%) versus U.S.-born (9.4%) parents. Compared to U.S. citizens (8.1%) and legal residents (4.3%), services receipt was least likely for undocumented parents (0.3%). Adjusting for covariates, nativity did not affect services receipt but undocumented legal status reduced the odds of receiving services by 95%. Data indicate that disparities do exist in receipt of substance use services among immigrant parents, especially undocumented parents, compared to U.S. born parents. Findings also suggest that the protective effect of immigrant status on problematic substance use, i.e., the immigrant paradox, may not apply to child-welfare-involved families.     

The Latina/o Racial and Citizenship Divide on Perceptions of the Influence of Immigrant Mobilizations*

In spring 2006, the United States witnessed immigrant marches throughout the nation. Although Latina/os are often depicted as the “face” of the immigrant marches, we know little about how racial and citizenship statuses shaped Latina/os’ perceptions of how the marches influenced public perceptions of undocumented immigrants. Using logistic regression on data from the 2006 National Survey of Latinos, we find that Latina/os identifying as white are less likely to be supportive of the immigrant marches than those who defied standard racial classifications, and instead identified as “Latina/o.” Moreover, Latina/os who are born in the United States are not as supportive of the immigrant marches in comparison with naturalized citizens and non‐citizen Latina/os, accounting for demographic and human capital factors. This study suggests there is a “racial‐ and citizenship divide” among Latina/os that fragments perceptions on the immigrant mobilizations in the United States.     

Does Where I Live Affect Whether I Apply? The Contextual Determinants of Applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides temporary relief from deportation and legal work authorization for eligible undocumented youth in the United States. This study investigates the factors that help or hinder undocumented youth in applying for DACA. We focus on contexts of reception to understand the determinants of DACA applications, as studies of previous legalization programs indicate that the communities in which immigrants live help shape application decisions. Our analysis shows that more immigrant‐serving organizations in a state translate into more applications, that DACA implementation rates are not statistically significantly lower in states with hostile policy climates, and that socioeconomic factors are most significantly related to DACA applications. In identifying the collective factors that influence applying to DACA, we demonstrate that the structural opportunities and barriers present in receiving locales shape undocumented youths’ decisions to regularize their immigration status, which has significant implications for their resulting incorporation trajectories.     

Exploring the Contextual Determinants of Individual Attitudes toward Immigrants and Criminal Activity and their Spillover Policy Implications

Immigrants are routinely tied to a range of social problems in the policy making process in the US political system. Little is known however about the extent to which citizens hold attitudes that connect immigrants to particular social problems and whether these attitudes spill over to influence citizens’ preferences toward specific public policy alternatives that might appear to be largely independent of immigrants and immigration. Investigating the nexus between immigration and crime, we ask how Anglo whites’ contextual environments influence their propensity to link immigrants to a salient social pathology like crime. Results show that whites living in states where immigrant populations have increased most dramatically and in states with lower socioeconomic characteristics are more likely to associate immigration with increased criminal activity. Whites’ attitudes toward immigration‐induced crime has important spillover implications to the larger public policy making process as whites who view immigrants as a cause of criminal activity are more likely to support tougher criminal sentencing and the death penalty.     

Group Conflict Theory in a Longitudinal Perspective: Analyzing the Dynamic Side of Ethnic Competition

One of the most established approaches to explain attitudes toward immigration is group conflict theory. However, even though the theory was articulated in dynamic terms, previous research has almost exclusively tested it through cross‐sectional analyses. The aim of this study is to disentangle the dynamic character of ethnic competition from more permanent determinants of ethnic threat. The findings show that a remarkable variation of concern over immigration, usually attributed to permanent positions of economic vulnerability, disappears when within‐person variation is modeled. In line with a dynamic approach of ethnic competition, becoming unemployed or being laid off increases concern over immigration. This effect is independent of social class.     

Earning Gaps for Chinese Immigrants in Canada and the United States

This study compares the US and Canada on the gap in earnings between Chinese immigrants and native‐born whites. Canada and the US are arguably more alike than most possible country pairings, yet they differ in significant ways in their approaches to immigration and integration. The primary difference between Canada and the US regarding immigration policy is that Canada selects a larger proportion of economic immigrants – that is, those admitted based on their ability to contribute to the economy – than the US's focus on family reunification. Canadian immigration and multicultural integration policy does not appear to improve Chinese immigrant earnings in the way that might be predicted from Canada's skilled‐based immigrant selection policy and welcoming social context. In spite of a more laissez‐faire approach to immigrant integration and a less skill‐selective immigration policy, we show that Chinese immigrants are earning relatively more in the US than in Canada.     

Cosmopolitanism: The Foundational Ground for a More Inclusive Understanding of Belonging to Protect the Human Rights of North Korean Stateless Women

In this article, I will examine the use of the notion of cosmopolitanism to address the exclusionary nature of citizenship. Citizenship is a contemporary social norm that privileges citizens and discriminates against others, leading to consequent human rights violations experienced by stateless populations. I will use the case study of North Korean stateless women who reside in China and who are victims of human trafficking as an example of stateless people who lack legal guarantees for human rights. By uncovering the way citizenship operates as a social structure that deprives people of their human rights, I will argue for Seyla Benhabib's notion of cosmopolitanism, which pursues a more inclusive notion of belonging and necessitates institutional changes. These include the juridical implementation of improved immigration policy and citizenship law, involving the cooperation of the global society, to recognize the dignity of the stateless and protect their human rights.     

Immigration enforcement and mixed-status families: The effects of risk of deportation on Medicaid use

As Congress priorities the immigration debate on increased border security, the fate of an estimated 11 million undocumented citizens remains uncertain. Stuck in between partisan politics and practical solutions are mixed-status families in which some members of the family are U.S. citizens while other members are in the country without proper authorization. This paper, examines the relationship between risk of deportation and Medicaid use drawing from a nationally sample of mothers from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey. These data are then merged with data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to create a contextual risk of deportation measure. Findings suggest that an increase in risk of deportation is associated with a decrease in Medicaid use. The implications of this work have tremendous impacts for health service providers and policy makers interested in preventing and reducing health disparities in complex family structures.     

Framing and immigration through the trump era

For the last decade, undocumented or illegal immigration has been one of the most contested policy issues in the United States, with significant news attention on policies affecting the undocumented population, ranging from deportations to comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Despite these prominent and multifaceted policy debates, scholarship on media framing and public opinion remain more focused on the portrayal of immigrants rather than policies affecting them. In general, scholars find that policy frames are far more consequential to public opinion than equivalency frames (variations in how news media describe unauthorized immigrants, either as “illegal” or “undocumented”) or episodic frames (whether news articles are heavy on human‐interest stories rather than policy facts and statistics). Also, negative frames generally have stronger effects than positive frames, and these effects sometimes vary by partisanship and family migration history. Finally, the relative infrequency of powerful frames in news stories, like a life spent in the United States, provides opportunities for advocates to move public opinion on immigration policy. These findings have important implications for future battles over immigration policy in the United States, which show no signs of abating.     

Citizenship Beyond Borders: A Cross‐National Study of Dual Citizenship*

As global integration increases, the implications for state boundaries and citizens’ identity grow more significant. Some scholars suggest that the recognition of dual citizenship reveals the extent to which cross‐national immigration requires states to formally recognize a multiplicity of national identities through dual citizenship ( Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer 2002 ; Castles and Davidson 2000 ; Falk 1994 ). We propose that scholars need to additionally consider citizenship identity as a source of national assimilation of the international community and postnational citizenship in world culture ( Brubaker 1992a ; Faist 2004 ; Soysal 1994 ; Turner 2001 ). We use logistic regression to evaluate this argument by examining factors that lead states to enact legislation recognizing dual citizenship. The resulting analysis suggests that the recognition of dual citizenship reflects national, ex‐colonial, and postnational cultural identities rather than the presence of cross‐national immigration.     

The Changing Legal Status Distribution of Immigrants: A Caution

This article presents arguments and data to show that the decennial census and annual Current Population Surveys include immigrants falling into four broad legal status groups: naturalized citizens; legal immigrants; legal nonimmigrants; and undocumented migrants. Since 1986, the relative rewards and penalties imposed on these four categories have shifted dramatically in response to U.S. policies, as have the relative number of foreigners in each group. In general, the relative share of foreigners in the most vulnerable status groups has increased, with the proportion of undocumented migrants and legal nonimmigrant rising and that of legal immigrants falling. Researchers using census and CPS data need to be aware of the shifting distribution of foreigners by legal status over time and of the changing profile of opportunities experienced by each status group, and they need to exercise caution in their interpretation of trends with respect to immigrant assimilation and the effects of immigration on U.S. society.