- Library & Learning Center
- Research Guides
Immigration in America
- Research Immigration
Start Learning About Your Topic
Create research questions to focus your topic, find books @ the mjc library, featured books, find articles in library databases, find current news articles on immigration, videos on immigration, find web resources, cite your sources, key search words.
Use the words below to search for useful information in books and articles .
- immigration
- illegal aliens
- illegal immigration
- legal immigration
- undocumented workers
- birthright citizenship
Background Reading:
It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic.
This step is important so that you will:
- Begin building your core knowledge about your topic
- Be able to put your topic in context
- Create research questions that drive your search for information
- Create a list of search terms that will help you find relevant information
- Know if the information you’re finding is relevant and useful.
All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.
- Issues and Controversies: Immigration Recent pro/con articles on immigration issues
- CQ Researcher: Immigrantion Overhaul See also sidebar on the right of the Immigration Overhaul article for additional related articles on the immigration issue.
- Immigration and Migration: In Context A two volume encyclopedia that provides readers with key data to understand the roots of the issues that make contemporary migration and immigration so contentious around the globe.
- Encyclopedia of American Immigration A three volume eEncyclopedia that covers the full depth and breadth of American immigration history—from the arrival of the early ancestors of Native Americans to a broad range of twenty-first century immigration issues.
Immigration is a complex issue that involves the law, the economy, and politics. You could concentrate on one issue and do in-depth research on that, or use several of the questions below to focus more generally on the topic of immigration.
- What is the history of immigration in America?
- Is immigration a serious problem in America?
- What are the laws regulating immigration in America?
- What are the issues involved in the enforcement of immigration laws?
- Why do immigrants come to America illegally?
- What are the economic affects of illegal immigration?
- What are the pros and cons of passing the Dream Act for undocumented students?
- Should Congress make it easier for people who immigrated illegally to become citizens?
Why Use Books:
Use books to read broad overviews and detailed discussions of your topic. You can also use books to find primary sources , which are often published together in collections.
Where Do I Find Books?
You'll use the library catalog to search for books, ebooks, articles, and more.
- OneSearch (Library Catalog) OnsSearch provides simple, one-stop searching for books and e-books, videos, articles, digital media, and more.
What if MJC Doesn't Have What I Need?
If you need materials (books, articles, recordings, videos, etc.) that you cannot find in the library catalog, use our interlibrary loan service.
- Interlibrary Loan Requesting materials from other libraries is simple and free.
All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.
Search using the Key Search Words in this guide, or use words more specific to your topic.
- Gale Databases This link opens in a new window Search over 35 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. Gale databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
- EBSCOhost Databases This link opens in a new window Search 22 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. EBSCO databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
- Access World News This link opens in a new window Search the full-text of editions of record for local, regional, and national U.S. newspapers as well as full-text content of key international sources. This is your source for The Modesto Bee from January 1989 to the present. Also includes in-depth special reports and hot topics from around the country. To access The Modesto Bee , limit your search to that publication. more... less... Watch this short video to learn how to find The Modesto Bee .
Find videos and documentaries about immigration in Films on Demand . These film resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.
Type immigration in the search box to access videos on this topic.
- Films on Demand This link opens in a new window Use Films on Demand when you want educational video content. This streaming video collection contains unlimited, 24/7 access to thousands of videos. Teachers can embed videos in Canvas. In addition, there are mobile options for iPad and Android. more... less... Instructions for embedding Films on Demand into Canvas .
- Kanopy This link opens in a new window Kanopy is a video streaming database with a broad selection of over 26,000 documentaries, feature films and training videos from thousands of producers. Instructions for embedding Kanopy into Canvas .
Use Google Scholar to find scholarly literature on the Web:
Browse Featured Web Sites:
- Migration Policy Institute "The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, DC dedicated to analysis of the movement of people worldwide."
- Pew Hispanic Center "The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that seeks to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos’ growing impact on the nation. The Center does not take positions on policy issues."
- U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States."
- U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "ICE's primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration."
- U. S. Customs and Border Protection "CBP has a responsibility for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws and regulations, including immigration and drug laws."
- MALDEF The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the nation's leading Latino civil rights organization, has many resources on immigration issues.
- Immigrant Resource Law Center The ILRC trains attorneys, paralegals, and community-based advocates who work with immigrants around the country. They inform the media, elected officials, and public to shape immigration policy and law.
Your instructor should tell you which citation style they want you to use. Click on the appropriate link below to learn how to format your paper and cite your sources according to a particular style.
- Chicago Style
- ASA & Other Citation Styles
- Last Updated: Sep 19, 2024 3:22 PM
- URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/immigration
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .
- Foreign Affairs
- CFR Education
- Newsletters
Climate Change
Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures
Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America
- Defense & Security
- Diplomacy & International Institutions
- Energy & Environment
- Human Rights
- Politics & Government
- Social Issues
Myanmar’s Troubled History
Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022
- Europe & Eurasia
- Global Commons
- Middle East & North Africa
- Sub-Saharan Africa
How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer
Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program
- Backgrounders
- Special Projects
Israel and the Middle East at a Crossroads: How Tehran’s Terror Campaign Threatens the U.S. and our Allies
Testimony by Elliott Abrams September 19, 2024
- Centers & Programs
- Books & Reports
- Task Force Program
- Fellowships
Oil and Petroleum Products
Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil
Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023
- Students and Educators
- State & Local Officials
- Religion Leaders
- Local Journalists
C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics With Lael Brainard
Virtual Event with Lael Brainard and Roger W. Ferguson Jr. March 2, 2021 C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics
- Lectureship Series
- Webinars & Conference Calls
- Member Login
The U.S. Immigration Debate
- The United States is home to more foreign-born residents than any other country in the world. In 2022, immigrants composed almost 14 percent of the U.S. population.
- Congress has failed for decades to agree on how to address immigration challenges, leaving many policy questions up to the courts and executive branch.
- President Joe Biden has reversed many of the Donald Trump administration’s restrictive policies, even while implementing his own in response to a historic influx of migrants.
Introduction
Immigration has been a touchstone of the U.S. political debate for decades, as policymakers have weighed economic, security, and humanitarian concerns. However, Congress has continued to disagree on comprehensive immigration reform, effectively moving some major policy decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and fueling debate in the halls of state and municipal governments.
Former President Donald Trump has put efforts to reshape asylum, border, and deportation policy at the center of his political movement. President Joe Biden had pledged to reverse Trump’s first-term actions and reform the system, but the end of pandemic-related border restrictions and a historic surge in migration have complicated his plans.
What is the immigrant population in the United States?
- United States
- Immigration and Migration
- Border and Port Security
- Donald Trump
Immigrants composed an estimated 13.9 percent of the U.S. population in 2022, amounting to roughly 46 million people out of a total of almost 335 million, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released in April 2024. Together, immigrants and their U.S.-born children made up about 27 percent of U.S. inhabitants, per the Current Population Survey. Though the share of the population that is foreign born has steadily risen since 1970, when there were fewer than ten million immigrants in the country, recent figures still fall below the record high of 14.8 percent in 1890.
As of 2022, Mexico was the top country of origin for U.S. immigrants, with Mexicans constituting 23 percent of the total immigrant population. Other major countries of origin include India (6 percent); China, including Hong Kong and Macau (5 percent); and the Philippines (4 percent).
Undocumented immigration. The U.S. government estimated the undocumented population to be some eleven million people in 2022. This total represents a slight decrease from 11.8 million before the 2008 economic crisis [PDF], which led some immigrants to return to their home countries and discouraged others from coming to the United States. In fiscal year 2023 (FY 2023), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended nearly 2.5 million people trying to illegally cross the southern U.S. border, a record high.
Until 2013, almost all of those trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens, and most were individuals seeking work. Between 2013 and 2021, most immigrants came from Asia, particularly China and India. Mexico has since regained its status as the top country of origin, and Central Americans have made up an increasingly larger share of migrants at the southern U.S. border. Generally, they are coming not for work but to make asylum claims, and many of them are unaccompanied children. Some of these immigrants have different legal rights from Mexican nationals in the United States: Under a 2008 anti–human trafficking law, unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries have a right to a hearing before being deported to their home countries. The increase in Central American migration has strained the U.S. immigration system. At the end of FY 2023, there were nearly 2.8 million cases pending in immigration courts, the most on record.
Though many of the policies that aim to reduce unlawful immigration focus on enforcement at the border, individuals who arrive in the United States legally and overstay their visas comprise a significant portion of the undocumented population. A Center for Migration Studies report found that, between 2010 and 2018, individuals who overstayed their visas far outnumbered those who arrived by crossing the border illegally.
Legal immigration. The United States granted more than one million individuals [PDF] legal permanent residency in FY 2022, close to pre-pandemic levels. Some 58 percent of them were admitted on the basis of family reunification. Other categories included: employment-based preferences (27 percent), refugees (3 percent), diversity (4 percent), and asylees (5 percent). As of late 2023, more than four million applicants were on the State Department’s waiting list [PDF] for family- and employer-related immigrant visas, nearly a third of whom were from Mexico.
Hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals work legally in the United States under various types of nonimmigrant visas. In FY 2023, the United States granted more than 265,000 visas for high-skilled workers [PDF], known as H1B visas, and over 310,000 visas for temporary workers in agriculture and other industries, or H2A visas. H1B visas are capped at 85,000 per fiscal year, with exceptions for certain fields .
Immigrants made up 18.6 percent of the U.S. civilian workforce [PDF] in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, up from 18.1 percent the previous year. Compared to those born in the United States, greater shares of immigrants worked in service fields (21.8 percent of all foreign-born people); production, transportation, and material moving (15.2 percent); and natural resources, construction, and maintenance (13.8 percent).
How do Americans feel about immigration?
A February 2024 poll by Gallup showed that 28 percent of surveyed Americans considered immigration to be the top problem facing the United States. In a separate Gallup poll conducted that same month, the majority of respondents felt that illegal immigration was a “critical” threat to U.S. national security.
A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April found that some 60 percent of the registered voters surveyed believed that undocumented immigrants currently in the United States should be allowed to stay, with 36 percent of respondents saying that undocumented immigrants should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship. In addition, a large majority of Americans still consider immigration to be overall good for the country.
How has Congress tried to address the issue?
The most recent push for an immigration policy overhaul was in 2013, following a decade in which Congress debated numerous immigration reforms, some considered comprehensive and others piecemeal. (Comprehensive immigration reform refers to omnibus legislation that attempts to address the following issues: demand for high- and low-skilled labor, the legal status of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country, border security, and interior enforcement.) The last major legislation to make it through Congress was under President Ronald Reagan in 1986, when his administration granted legal amnesty to some three million undocumented residents; in 1990, President George H.W. Bush further expanded legal immigration by increasing the cap for immigrant visas from 270,000 to 700,000, though he lowered the quota to 675,000 after several years. In 2007, President George W. Bush worked with congressional Democrats to reach a compromise on a new comprehensive bill, but it ultimately failed to win enough support in the Senate.
President Barack Obama pressed hard for a comprehensive bill that would pair a path to legalization for undocumented residents with stronger border security provisions. The Democrat-led Senate passed this legislation in 2013, but the bill stalled in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Both Presidents Trump and Biden put forward their own plans, which were not seriously considered by Congress.
What was the Obama administration’s approach?
With legislation thwarted, Obama focused on executive action, a tactic that his successors continued. In 2012, his administration began a program known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , which offered renewable, two-year deportation deferrals and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the United States as children and had no criminal records.
Obama characterized the move as a “ stopgap measure ” and urged Congress to pass the DREAM Act , or Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors—legislation first introduced in 2001 that would have benefited many of the same people. Since then, more than 830,000 people have participated in DACA, and it’s estimated that almost 1.2 million more were eligible as of 2023. Obama attempted to extend similar benefits to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents through a program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), but the Supreme Court effectively killed it in 2016.
In 2014, Obama also grappled with a surge of more than sixty thousand unaccompanied minors at the southern border, mostly from Central America. He directed $750 million in aid to the region to improve conditions there. Meanwhile, his administration faced criticism for its enforcement policies, including detaining children in poor conditions and overseeing the deportation of more people— approximately three million —than either the Bill Clinton or George W. Bush administrations had.
What was the Trump administration’s approach?
Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump. He blames previous administrations for failing to secure the southern border, and in his first term, he advocated for sharply reducing both legal and illegal immigration. He repeatedly used executive action to reshape asylum, deportation, and border policy.
Border security and enforcement . Trump vowed to expand the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which he claimed would stop drugs and gangs from entering the country. He was unsuccessful in securing funding from Congress, leading to a federal government shutdown in 2019 and a subsequent declaration of a national emergency , which allowed him to divert funds to build the wall.
Other enforcement measures under Trump included increasing border personnel; sending thousands of active-duty troops to the border; threatening Mexico with tariffs if it did not increase its own border enforcement; and attempting to cut federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities, or jurisdictions that refuse to enforce federal immigration directives.
Trump also ratcheted up previous administrations’ deterrence efforts. He implemented a zero-tolerance policy, under which authorities arrested and prosecuted everyone caught crossing the southern border without authorization. This caused thousands of family separations , since by law children must be held apart from parents facing criminal prosecution. (Presidents Bush and Obama likewise faced criticism for child detention, but they did not make separations a matter of policy.)
DACA . Trump sought to end DACA, calling it unconstitutional. The move spurred multiple legal challenges and, in June 2020, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s plan . A December 2020 federal court ruling forced the Trump administration to resume accepting new applicants.
Travel bans and refugee cap . Trump aimed to sharply reduce the number of refugees and other immigrants granted legal entry into the United States. In 2017, he instituted a ban on immigration and travel from several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Somalia, and Yemen. The original order was rejected by the courts, but the Supreme Court upheld a more limited version. Trump also lowered the cap on the number of refugees the United States accepts each year to less than fifteen thousand for FY 2021—the lowest figure in the history of the U.S. refugee program . Additionally, he ended temporary protected status (TPS)—a program that allows migrants from certain crisis-stricken nations to live and work in the United States for a limited period—for several countries.
Asylum policy . Trump implemented new restrictions on asylum seekers. In 2018, the administration began “metering” asylum applications, or only accepting a limited number [PDF] each day. The next year, it launched the Migrant Protection Protocols , also known as the “Remain in Mexico” program, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed in U.S. courts. At the same time, it sought “safe third country” agreements with several Latin American countries, which would have allowed U.S. authorities to send asylum seekers who traveled through those countries back there. Only an agreement with Guatemala was implemented before that country terminated it in 2021. Additionally, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, previously a rarely used public health law, to deny asylum on health-related grounds amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Comprehensive reform effort . Like his immediate predecessors, Trump proposed broad immigration reform . His would have created a merit-based system to replace the current one, which prioritizes family reunification. It also included an expansion of the border wall and an employment verification system known as E-Verify, but it did not address the status of current undocumented residents. Congress ultimately did not take up the proposal.
What has been Biden’s approach?
Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Biden campaigned on overturning almost all of Trump’s immigration policies. Since then, the Biden administration has reduced immigration enforcement within the United States, ended the travel bans, expanded green-card access for certain undocumented immigrants, and ended the controversial Title 42 policy, though it did initially maintain many pandemic-related restrictions. The administration also initially halted construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, though it has since moved forward with plans to build additional sections; expanded TPS protections; terminated the Remain in Mexico program (with Supreme Court approval); and raised the refugee cap to 125,000 for fiscal years 2022–24.
However, Biden’s efforts to undo Trump-era policies have been challenged by a historic influx of migrants at the southern border. The record surge in border crossings has prompted the administration to implement several new restrictions since 2023, including a so-called transit ban allowing the government to deny asylum to migrants who did not previously apply for protection in a third country. In addition, the administration can temporarily bar asylum requests when the number of illegal crossings exceeds a certain threshold; since the start of 2024, illegal crossings have slowed .
Meanwhile, Biden has worked with Latin American leaders to increase aid to refugee populations, improve border management, and better coordinate emergency responses, even as his own comprehensive immigration reform bill and other border security legislation have failed in Congress. His administration has also launched efforts to accelerate the reunification of migrant families, including by reinstating the Central American Minors (CAM) program, which reunites children in the so-called Northern Triangle countries with their parents in the United States, and by creating a family-reunification task force. Additionally, Biden has pledged to invest $4 billion to address the drivers of migration from Central America, and he has sought to revive DACA; the Department of Homeland Security continues to accept and process renewal requests amid ongoing legal challenges to the program.
Daily News Brief
A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning. weekdays., the world this week, a weekly digest of the latest from cfr on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. every friday., think global health.
A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide. Weekly.
How are state and local authorities handling these issues?
States vary widely in how they treat unauthorized immigrants. Some, including California and Massachusetts, allow undocumented immigrants to apply for drivers’ licenses, receive in-state tuition at universities, and obtain other benefits. At the other end of the spectrum are states such as Texas, where the legislature passed a law [PDF] mandating that local governments and law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration officers.
The federal government is generally responsible for enforcing immigration laws, but it delegates some immigration-related duties to state and local law enforcement. However, the degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate: dozens of counties across thirteen states are home to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement.
The degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate.
President Trump decried these sanctuary jurisdictions and reinstated a controversial Obama-era program known as Secure Communities, in which the FBI shares fingerprints of suspects collected by state and local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities. Under the program, state and local agencies also hand over individuals presumed to be in the country illegally. Biden terminated the program shortly after taking office.
A range of court rulings during the Trump era increased pressure on states. In 2018, the Justice Department launched a lawsuit against California over sanctuary jurisdictions, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. It filed similar suits against New Jersey and Washington, and a federal court ruled in 2020 that the Trump administration could withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, including New York City. Under Biden, the Justice Department reversed this stance, leading the Supreme Court to dismiss several pending cases .
The ongoing border crisis has driven increasing controversy over local responses. After Trump called on states to deploy National Guard contingents to the southern border, several governors refused. Others, including Texas’s Greg Abbott, embraced Trump’s views, continuing to expand the border wall and seeking to boost the role of state and local law enforcement in carrying out federal immigration policy. In the Biden era, Abbott has sought to impose stronger enforcement at the Texas-Mexico border despite federal opposition. The governor signed a law in December 2023 making it a state crime to cross the border into Texas illegally and authorizing law enforcement to arrest and deport migrants. The bill remains on hold amid legal challenges; several other states are attempting to enact similar legislation.
Recommended Resources
This CFR Backgrounder explains who is responsible for securing the U.S. border.
This timeline traces changes to U.S. postwar immigration policy.
The Washington Post ’s Eduardo Porter and Youyou Zhou argue that the United States’ efforts to limit immigration a century ago actually helped diversify the country .
In this CFR webinar, experts discuss how immigration is shaping political conversations ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
On this episode of The President’s Inbox , the American Immigration Council’s Dara Lind breaks down the situation at the southern border .
The Migration Policy Institute’s Muzaffar Chishti, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, and Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh look at Biden’s immigration record at his term’s three-year mark.
- Central America
Emily Lieberman, Nathalie Bussemaker, Samuel Parmer, and Danielle Renwick contributed to this Backgrounder. Will Merrow created the graphics.
- How many immigrants are in the U.S.?
- What has Congress done?
- What was Obama’s approach?
- What was Trump’s approach?
- What is Biden’s approach?
- What’s happening at the state and local levels?
More From Our Experts
How Will the EU Elections Results Change Europe?
In Brief by Liana Fix June 10, 2024 Europe Program
Iran Attack Means an Even Tougher Balancing Act for the U.S. in the Middle East
In Brief by Steven A. Cook April 14, 2024 Middle East Program
Iran Attacks on Israel Spur Escalation Concerns
In Brief by Ray Takeyh April 14, 2024 Middle East Program
Top Stories on CFR
The Quad Leaders in Delaware
Blog Post by Sheila A. Smith September 23, 2024 Asia Unbound
What Is Hezbollah?
Backgrounder by Kali Robinson September 20, 2024
Crisis in Sudan: War, Famine, and a Failing Global Response
Photo Essay by Mariel Ferragamo and Sabine Baumgartner September 19, 2024
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
Immigration Politics and Policymaking in the USA (2017–2021): Examining the Effect of Geopolitics on Public Attitude Towards Immigration Policies
Michael k. dzordzormenyoh.
1 Department of Political Science, Kent State University, 302 Bowman Hall, Kent, OH 44242 USA
Francis D. Boateng
2 School of Applied Sciences, Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Mississippi, Mayes 303, P. O. Box 1848, Oxford, MS 38677 USA
Previous attitudinal studies on immigration in the USA largely focus on the predictors of anti-immigration sentiments compared to examining immigration policies. The dearth of scientific enquiry about the latter necessitated the present study. By analyzing individual-level data ( n = 1018) obtained from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), we assess the effect of geopolitics–red and blue states and other factors on public attitude towards six immigration policies in the USA (2017–2021). Overall, the results indicate a null relationship between geopolitics and public attitude towards immigration policies. Additionally, we observed several sociodemographic factors, such as age, political ideology, party affiliation, and region, influence public attitude towards immigration policies. Based on these results, it is recommended that immigration policies formulated and implemented in the USA must be based on empirical evidence and not sentiments.
Introduction
Each of the fifty states in the USA can be viewed or categorized as either red (republican) or blue (democrat) states based on electoral or voting patterns, majority political ideology, and the dominance of either the Republican or Democratic party in the state (Levendusky & Pope, 2011 ; Miller & Conover, 2015 ; Nivola & Brady, 2007 ; Rodden, 2005 ). Some studies refer to this phenomenon as geopolitics—the intersection of politics and geography (Davisson, 2011 ; May & McGarvey, 2017 ).
Although some previous studies have examined the association between geopolitics and public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA, the results are inconsistent and inconclusive (Bessett et al., 2015 ; May & McGarvey, 2017 ; Stanhope et al., 2019 ). Thus, it leads to calls for further investigation to bring nuance and augment the existing findings (Stanhope et al., 2019 ).
Studies examining the relationship between geopolitics and public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA can be broadly summarized into three categories. First, studies that focus on examining the association between an individual state and public attitude towards immigration policy (Lee et al., 2001 ). Second, studies that focus on examining the association between a group or bloc of states—Midwest, Northeast, and Southern states—and public attitude towards immigration policy (Sanders & Heineman, 2020 ). Third, studies that focus on examining the effect of electoral or voting pattern, and the dominance of either the Republican or Democratic party in the state—geopolitics—on public attitude towards immigration policy (Bessett et al., 2015 ; May & McGarvey, 2017 ).
The first two studies are commonplace in the extant literature compared to the third group of studies which are not because of the lack of scientific enquiry using this approach. Thus, it creates a gap in the existing literature that requires further investigation and the attention of researchers. Additionally, findings from geopolitics studies are mixed and require further investigation not only to augment the extant literature but also to add nuance to the findings.
Therefore, against this background, the present study seeks to add to the existing literature on the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA while addressing some of the existing gaps in the literature. To accomplish this goal, we analyzed 1018 responses obtained from the Public Religion Research Institute 1 guided by six research questions, namely:
- Research Question 1: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border?
- Research Question 2: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA?
- Research Question 3: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants, so they return to their home country?
- Research Question 4: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards building a wall against immigrants in the USA?
- Research Question 5: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA?
- Research Question 6: What is the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background?
Overall, assessing the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards six different immigration policies has several theoretical and policy implications. Theoretically, it augments previous studies seeking to understand the effect of geopolitics on immigration while adding nuance to the existing knowledge. Thus, the present study addresses a void in the present literature. Policy-wise, the present study sheds light on not just the effect of geopolitics on immigration but also on how citizens formulate their views and opinions that might apply to other policy issues and areas. Finally, the present study also reveals the effect of other factors on public attitude towards immigration policies in the USA.
We analyzed individual-level data of 1018 respondents (407 interviewed by landline and 611 interviewed by cellphones) obtained from the June 2018 national representative survey of adults 18 + years in the USA on immigration by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). Using empirical evidence from the extant literature, the variables that influence public attitude towards immigration policies in the USA were categorized into the following variables: geopolitics, group conflict/instrumental group conflict, demographic contact/intergroup, political, sociodemographic characteristics of the public, and others.
Literature Review
Geopolitics, public attitude, immigration policies/laws.
Public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policy in the USA is influenced by several factors (Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins, 2022 ; McCann & Boateng, 2020 ). One of such factors is geopolitics–red or blue states (Davisson, 2011 ; May & McGarvey, 2017 ). Red or blue states are often identified based on the electoral or voting pattern of each of the states, the dominance of either the Republican or Democratic party within the state over a period of time or during a specific electoral cycle, and the presidential candidate that wins the electoral college vote of the state among other factors (Levendusky & Pope, 2011 ; Miller & Conover, 2015 ; Nivola & Brady, 2007 ; Rodden, 2005 ).
Empirical evidence from some geopolitics studies suggest that blue states turn to be pro-immigration while red states turn to be anti-immigration (Levendusky & Pope, 2011 ; Miller & Conover, 2015 ). Elections in the USA are not just means for voters to participate in democracy, but also they are means for voters to express their policy preferences by choosing one candidate over the other (Major et al., 2018 ; Mayda et al., 2018 ). For instance, some studies contend that the election of Trump in 2016 was an indication of public support for some of his anti-immigrant sentiments and other policies espoused by the candidate (Bessett et al., 2015 ; Lee et al., 2001 ; May & McGarvey, 2017 ; McKanders, 2018 ; Sanders & Heineman, 2020 ). It was widely suggested that red states voted for the Trump because of the anti-immigration policies he sought to implement while blue states voted for Clinton because of her pro-immigration policies (Braaten & Braaten, 2021 ; Finley & Esposito, 2020 ; Glass & Levchak, 2014 ; Goodman, 2017 ). If geopolitics–red or blue states influence voters’ choice for presidential candidates, does it influence public attitude towards immigration policies in any way?
Conflict Theories, Public Attitude, and Immigration Policies/Laws
Furthermore, besides the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards immigration policy, the extant literature identifies other factors that influence public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA (Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2016 ; Pryce, 2018 ). Conflict between immigrants and the public over resources, such as job opportunities, welfare programs, and others, continues to influence public attitude towards immigrants in the USA (Florack et al., 2003 ; Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2016 ; McLaren, 2017 ; Pryce, 2018 ).
These groups of studies focusing on the conflict between immigrants and the public—group conflict—and instrumental group conflict theories contend that high levels of immigrant population create the perception of competition for existing resources with the public which leads to anti-immigration attitudes towards immigrants (McLaren, 2017 ; Pryce, 2018 ). These studies have been criticized for the failure to address internal conflicts within each of the groups and their overemphasis on external conflicts between immigrants and the public (Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins, 2022 ; Meuleman et al., 2009 ).
Additionally, some studies contend that conflicts between immigrants and the public that influence public attitude towards immigrants are the result of the lack of contact between both groups. Thus, these studies suggest that constant contact between immigrants and the public can help improve knowledge sharing and cultural assimilation, and reduce conflicts (Ceobanu & Escandell, 2008 ; Stangor et al., 1996 ). Although the existing literature have found that contact between immigrants and the public reduces negative perceptions about immigrants caused by issues of racism, false knowledge, xenophobia, and others (Allen & Goetz, 2021 ; Kilty & Haymes, 2000 ).
Critics argue that the contact between immigrants and the public through contact is a short-term solution and can also lead to unintended negative consequences (Dixon et al., 2007 ; Schlueter & Scheepers, 2010 ; Crisp and Turner 2013 ). For example, putting two or more diverse groups unwilling to work together can lead to more conflict and further reinforce negative perceptions held by the public about immigrants (Boateng et al., 2021 ).
Crime-Immigration, Public Attitude, and Immigration Policies/Laws
Moreover, previous studies argue that public attitude towards immigration policies in the USA is influenced by the perception of crime and the association of immigrants with crime (Chenane & Wright, 2021 ; Light & Miller, 2018 ). Immigration has been observed to lead to community heterogeneity, competition, conflict, and crime in some cases (Hébert et al., 2004 ; Light & Miller, 2018 ). In contrast to this view, immigration has been found to lead to innovation, strong family and friendship bonds, socio-economic opportunities, and the revitalization of dying communities and economies (Alba & Nee, 2003 ; Feldmeyer, 2009 ; Sampson, 2008 ; Sampson & Bean, 2006 ).
Other Explanations of Public Attitude Towards Immigration Policies/Laws
Finally, several studies have found diverse sociodemographic variables influence public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA. Specifically, some studies have found that population characteristics, such as age, political ideology, income, education, marital status, religion, region, rural–urban residency, and gender, continue to influence public attitude towards immigration policy in the USA (Bowling & Westenra, 2017 ; Brown & Brown, 2017 ; Davis & Deole, 2015 ; Docquier et al., 2012 ; Garcia & Davidson, 2013 ; Haaland & Roth, 2020 ; Knoll, 2009 ; Lichter, 2012 ; Provine & Sanchez, 2011 ). Similar to these findings, a recent study by Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins ( 2022 ) found that the international reputation and image of the USA based on the immigration policies espoused and implemented influence public attitude towards immigration (also see Kudrle, 2003 ; Rocha et al., 2015 ; Manley, 2017 ; Giuliano & Tabellini, 2020 ; Isaacs et al., 2020 ).
In conclusion, the review of literature informed the study variables utilized in this study. These variables can be grouped into the following: geopolitics, group conflict/instrumental group conflict, demographic contact/intergroup, political, sociodemographic characteristics of the public, and others. Table Table1 1 provides a summary of the literature review and variables.
Summary of literature review
Literature reviewed | Brief explanation/variables |
---|---|
Geopolitics | Red and blue states influence public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Group conflict and instrumental group conflict | Conflict between the public and immigrants influence public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Demographic contact and intergroup | Contact between the public and immigrants influence public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Political factors | Political trust, ideology, and international political image of the USA regarding immigration influence public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Crime and immigration | Public perception of the association between crime and immigrants influences public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Demographic characteristics | Race, gender, income, sexual orientation, party affiliation, etcetera, of the public influence public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies |
Source: compiled by authors
We analyzed the individual-level data of 1018 respondents (407 interviewed by landline and 611 interviewed by cell phones) obtained from the June 2018 national representative survey of adults 18 + years in the USA on immigration by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). PRRI 2 is a nonpartisan, independent research organization that conducts public opinion polls on a variety of different topics, specializing in the quantitative and qualitative study of political issues as they relate to religious values. The survey was based on a probability sampling to ensure results are broadly representative of the entire US population. The surveys were administered to respondents in either English or Spanish. Overall, the survey includes Americans’ views related to several immigration issues, including building a wall along the border between the USA and Mexico, banning refugees from entering the USA, the belief that America sets a good moral example for the world today on issues of immigration, and among other useful questions about immigration and the population characteristics of the respondents. We consider geopolitics, group conflict/instrumental group conflict, demographic contact/intergroup, political, sociodemographic characteristics of the public, and others explanatory factors that influence public attitude towards immigration policies in the USA.
Study Variables
Outcome variables.
The outcome variable for the present study is public attitudes (support or opposition) towards immigrants and immigration policies in the USA . The outcome variable was measured utilizing six questions from the survey. Measure 1 gauges the public’s attitude towards a border wall against immigrants entering the USA. 3 The measure was coded as a dichotomous variable with 0 representing the public favor border walls and 1 representing the public oppose border walls. Additionally, measure 2 gauges the public’s attitude towards laws that prevent immigrants from entering the USA. 4 The measure was coded as a binary variable with 0 representing the public favor laws preventing refugees and immigrants entering the USA and 1 representing the public oppose laws preventing refugees and immigrants entering the USA . Likewise, measure 3 gauges the public’s attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border , 5 and the measure was coded as 0 representing the public favor laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border and 1 representing the public oppose laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border.
Moreover, measure 4 gauges the public’s attitude towards the USA not accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA , 6 and the measure was coded as 0 representing the public agree and 1 representing the public disagree. Furthermore, measure 5 gauges the public’s attitude towards the USA making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants to force them to return to their home country . 7 The measure was coded as 0 representing the public agree and 1 representing the public disagree. Additionally, measure 6 gauges the public’s attitude towards police stop targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background . 8 The measure was coded as a binary variable with 0 representing the public favor police stop targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background and 1 representing the public oppose police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background. In conclusion, the six outcome variables gauge the public’s attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies in the USA.
Predictor Variable
The predictor variable for the present study is geopolitics–red and blue states in the USA based on the 2016 presidential election results. We created a geopolitics variable using the presidential candidate that won the state electoral college votes for all the states in the USA in 2016. The geopolitics variable was coded as 0 representing blue states—states won by Clinton—and 1 representing red states—states won by Trump. We utilized only the 2016 presidential election results as opposed to historical election results because the majority of the outcome variables included in the present study happened under the Trump administration. Although we acknowledge that some of the outcome variables have historical bearing, analyzing the present data with a historical geopolitics measure was impossible and we contend it can significantly influence our findings. Overall, 29 states were coded as red states while 21 states were coded as blue states. 9
Control Variables
We also controlled for the effect of several variables that can influence our understanding of public attitude towards immigrants and immigration policies in the USA. Gender (0 = female and 1 = male), age (18–94 years), region (1 = Northeast, 2 = North Central, 3 = South, and 4 = West), home ownership (0 = owned and 1 = rented). Registered voter (0 = no and 1 = yes), marital status (1 = single/never married, 2 = divorced/separated, 3 = married, and 4 = widowed), education (1 = high school, 2 = college, and 3 = graduate school or more), race (1 = Black, 2 = White, 3 = Asian, 4 = Native American, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders, 5 = Hispanic, and 6 = mixed race/other races). Political party identification (1 = Democrat, 2 = independent, 3 = Republican, and 4 = others), sexual orientation (0 = heterosexual/straight and 1 = not heterosexual/ straight), rural–urban status (0 = rural and 1 = urban). Religious affiliation (1 = no religion, 2 = Christian, 3 = Muslim/Islamic, 4 = Buddhist/Hindu, 5 = Jewish/Judaism, 6 = other religions), employment status (0 = employed and 1 = unemployed), income (1 = up to $24,999, 2 = $25,000–$49,999, 3 = $50,000–$100,000, and 4 = $100,000 or more), trust in political institutions to handle immigration in the USA (1 = trust in congress, 2 = trust in Trump’s presidency, and 3 = no trust), 10 the USA as a good moral example for other countries in the world when it comes to immigration issues (0 = agree and 1 = disagree), 11 political ideology (1 = conservative, 2 = moderate, 3 = liberal).
Plan of Analysis
To answer the research question for the present study, we conducted several analyses. First, we conducted a descriptive analysis to assess the distribution of scores for the variables utilized in the present analysis. Second, we conducted a bivariate correlation analysis coupled with a collinearity test to check for the presence of multicollinearity between the study variables. Overall, results from both the bivariate and collinearity test showed no evidence of multicollinearity issues in the data. Third, we conducted a regression analysis to assess the effect of the predictor variable on the outcome variable. Specifically, we conducted a multivariate binary logistic regression.
Descriptive Results
The descriptive results for the study variables are shown in Table Table2. 2 . Public attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from their children at the border (favor = 25%, opposed = 75%) had an average score of 0.75 and a standard deviation of 0.43. Public attitude towards the acceptance of refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries into the USA (agree = 76%, disagree = 24%) had an average score and standard deviation of 0.23 and 0.42, respectively. Public attitude towards policies that make conditions for undocumented immigrants so they return to their home countries (agree = 32%, disagree = 68%) had an average score of 0.67 and a standard deviation of 0.46. Public attitude towards building a wall against immigrants (favor = 37%, opposed = 63%) had an average score and a standard deviation of 0.63 and 0.48 respectively. Public attitude towards laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA (favor = 36%, oppose = 64%) had an average score of 0.64 and a standard deviation of 0.47. Public attitude towards police stop targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background (favor = 53%, oppose = 47%) had an average score and standard deviation of 0.47 and 0.49 respectively. The geopolitics variable–red or blue state (red states = 60% and blue states = 40%) had an average score of 0.60 and a standard deviation of 0.49 (Table (Table2 2 ).
Description of study variables ( N = 1018)
Variables | N | M(SD) | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|
Laws/policies that separate parents from their children at the border | 957 | .75(.43) | 0 | 1 |
Accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA | 980 | .23(.42) | 0 | 1 |
Policies that make conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants so they return to their home countries | 970 | .67(.46) | 0 | 1 |
Building walls against immigrants | 967 | .63(.48) | 0 | 1 |
Laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA | 911 | .64(.47) | 0 | 1 |
Police stops targeted at illegal immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background | 964 | .47(.49) | 0 | 1 |
Geopolitics—red and blue states | 1,018 | .60(.49) | 0 | 1 |
The USA as a good moral example on immigration to other countries globally | 988 | .57(.49) | 0 | 1 |
Trust political institutions | 932 | 1.93(.65) | 1 | 3 |
Political ideology | 965 | 2.07(.82) | 1 | 3 |
Age | 992 | 52.96(19.05) | 18 | 94 |
Rural–urban residency | 935 | .74(.43) | 0 | 1 |
Home ownership | 997 | .29(.45) | 0 | 1 |
Marital status | 1,002 | 1.80(1.29) | 1 | 4 |
Employment status | 1,009 | .45(.49) | 0 | 1 |
Educational status | 1,007 | 1.82(.88) | 1 | 3 |
Income | 897 | 2.42(1.08) | 1 | 4 |
Race | 995 | 4.91(1.86) | 1 | 6 |
Party ID | 970 | 2.14(.82) | 1 | 4 |
Registered voter | 1,007 | .82(.38) | 0 | 1 |
Gender | 1,018 | .48(.50) | 0 | 1 |
Religion | 973 | 2.05(1.95) | 1 | 6 |
Region | 1,018 | 2.64(1.02) | 1 | 4 |
Sexual orientation | 1,018 | .91(.28) | 0 | 1 |
N represents number of observations; M represents the mean score or value; SD represents the standard deviation; Min. represents the minimum value; and Max. represents the maximum value
The USA as a good moral example on immigration to other countries globally (agree = 43%, disagree = 57%). Trust in political institutions (Trump’s presidency = 24.7%, Congress = 56.5%, none = 18.6%). The average age for the respondents was 53 years with a standard deviation of 19.1 for respondents aged 18–94 years surveyed. Rural–urban residency (rural = 25%, urban = 75%). Home ownership (rent = 29%, own home = 71%). Marital status (single = 27%, divorced/separated = 14%, widowed = 11%, married = 48%). Employment status (employed = 55%, unemployed = 45%). Education (high school = 32%, college = 50%, graduate school = 18%). Income ($24,999 and below = 21.8%, $25,000–$49,999 = 24.5%, $50,000–$99,000 = 29.9%, $100,000 + = 23.6%). Party affiliation (republican = 26.6%, democrat = 33.7%, independent = 38.4%, others = 1.34%). Race (White = 71.6%, Black = 12.5%, Hispanic = 6.6%, Native American = 2.8%, Asian = 2.1%, Mixed race/Others = 4.2%). Gender (female = 51%, male = 49%). Religion (Christian = 73.6%, Muslim = 0.6%, Buddhist = 1.4%, Judaism = 1.9%, others = 2.2%, no religion = 17.3%). Registered voter (no = 18%, yes = 82%). Sexual orientation (not heterosexual = 9%, heterosexual = 91%). Region (Northeast = 18%, North Central = 22%, South = 37%, West = 23%) with an average score of 2.64 and a standard deviation of 1.02. Political ideology (conservative = 38.5%, liberal = 30.6%, moderate = 30.7%).
Predictors of Public Attitude Towards Immigrants and Immigration Policies in the USA
In the period between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration introduced several laws, administrative restructuring, and policies to reshape US immigration. In this study, we examined six of these laws and policies. See Table Table3 3 for a summary.
Immigration policies and laws and their objectives
Policies/laws | Act/date | Objective of the policy/law | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Separate parents from children at the border | RAISE ACT of 2017 Cancellation of DACA in 2017 Trump Administration Family Policy in 2018 | Separating minor children entering the USA from the parents or relatives that accompanied them, including people applying for asylum Young adults (“Dreamers”) brought illegally into the USA as children to work legally without fear of deportation under President Obama was cancelled under President Trump |
2 | Accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA | RAISE ACT of 2017 | Imposes a cap of 50,000 refugees a year |
3 | Making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants so they return to their home country | RAISE ACT of 2017 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) & local law enforcement raids in 2019 | Reduce the undocumented immigrant population |
4 | Building a wall against immigrants in the USA | RAISE ACT of 2017 & Executive Order 13,767 signed in 2017 | Reduce the number of undocumented immigrants into the USA from neighboring countries especially Mexico |
5 | Preventing immigrants from entering the USA | RAISE ACT of 2017 Proclamation 9994 in 2020 (DNECNCD) | Seeks to abolish the Visa Diversity Lottery Suspension and limitation of immigrants into the USA |
6 | Police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background | RAISE ACT of 2017 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) & local law enforcement raids in 2019 | Removal of undocumented immigrants through unannounced stops |
Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) ACT
Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (DNECNCD)
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA)
Trump Administration Family Policy (TAFP)
Compiled by the authors
About 25% of the respondents favor laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border compared to 75% who opposed this policy. After estimating the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border while controlling for other variables, the model was significant ( F = 257.38, p < 0.001) and explained a significant (36%) portion of variance in the data (see model I). After controlling for the effect of other variables in the model, the USA as a good moral example on immigration globally ( t = 3.53, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 2.54, trust in Trump’s presidency ( t = − 3.60, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.35, and political ideology, specifically, conservatives ( t = − 3.28, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 0.37 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border in the USA. The present findings are consistent with previous findings about the factors that influence public attitude towards immigration policies and laws in the USA (see Pryce, 2018 ; McCann & Boateng, 2020 ).
Again, approximately 76% of the respondents agree to this policy while 24% disagree. After estimating the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA while controlling for other variables, the model was significant ( F = 139.53; p < 0.001) and explained 20% of the variance in the data (see model II). After controlling for the effect of other variables in the model, trust in Trump’s presidency ( t = 2.53, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio 1.92, trust in Congress ( t = − 2.08, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 0.48, and region–North Central ( t = − 2.26, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 0.43 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA.
Also, about 32% of the respondents agree to this policy while 68% disagree. After estimating the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants so they return to their home country while controlling for other variables, the model was significant ( F = 184.30; p < 0.001) and explained approximately 23% of variance in the data (see model III). After controlling for the effect of other variables in the model, the USA as a moral example on immigrant policy globally ( t = 4.42, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 2.62, and political ideology–conservative ( t = − 3.52; p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.41 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants, so they return to their home country (Table (Table4 4 ).
Effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards immigration policy (separating parents from children at the border/accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA/ making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants, so they return to their home country) in the USA
Variables | Model I | Model II | Model III | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE(OR) | t/F | SE(OR) | t/F | SE(OR) | t/F | |
Geopolitics–red and blue state | .27(.90) | − 0.33 | .35(1.32) | 1.03 | .29(1.15) | 0.57 |
The USA as a moral example | .67(2.54) | 3.53*** | .23(.96) | − 0.14 | .57(2.62) | 4.42*** |
Trust in political institutions | ||||||
Trump’s presidency | .10(.35) | − 3.60*** | .49(1.92) | 2.53* | .12(.48) | − 2.78*** |
Congress | .41(1.20) | 0.54 | .16(.48) | − 2.08* | .49(1.60) | 1.53 |
Political ideology | ||||||
Liberal | .61(1.58) | 1.19 | .26(.87) | − 0.44 | .29(1.02) | 0.09 |
Conservative | .11(.37) | − 3.28** | .30(1.11) | 0.39 | .10(.41) | − 3.52*** |
Age | .01(1.01) | 1.18 | .00(1.01) | 1.91 | .00(.98) | − 2.14* |
Rural–urban residency | .44(1.59) | 1.67 | .29(1.14) | 0.52 | .17(.74) | − 1.24 |
Homeownership | .26(.79) | − 0.68 | .33(1.19) | 0.62 | .38(1.40) | 1.24 |
Marital status | ||||||
Divorced | .25(.56) | − 1.27 | .35(.93) | − 0.18 | .46(1.28) | 0.67 |
Widowed | .42(.77) | − 0.45 | .20(.40) | − 1.82 | .37(.85) | − 0.36 |
Married | .33(.86) | − 0.38 | .28(.87) | − 0.41 | .39(1.28) | 0.82 |
Educational status | ||||||
College | .17(.58) | − 1.75 | .26(.99) | − 0.02 | .25(1.01) | 0.04 |
Graduate + | .22(.55) | − 1.44 | .23(.65) | − 1.21 | .48(1.44) | 1.10 |
Employment | .40(1.27) | 0.76 | .32(1.16) | 0.55 | .20(.82) | − 0.76 |
Income | ||||||
Up to $24,999 | .32(.68) | − 0.80 | .47(1.17) | 0.39 | .32(.84) | − 0.44 |
$25,000 − $49,999 | .69(1.74) | 1.40 | .21(.58) | − 1.48 | .45(1.35) | 0.91 |
$50,000 − $100,000 | .58(1.74) | 1.67 | .29(1.00) | 0.02 | .28(1.00) | 0.00 |
Party identification | ||||||
Republican | .38(.28) | − 0.93 | 7.65(43.24) | 0.01 | .46(.45) | − 0.77 |
Democrat | 4.79(3.40) | 0.87 | 9.59(54.22) | 0.01 | 1.14(1.09) | 0.09 |
Independent | .85(.63) | − 0.34 | 3.89(22.01) | 0.01 | .56(.54) | − 0.58 |
Race | ||||||
White | .63(.47) | − 0.56 | 4.69(38.92) | 0.01 | 1.17(1.42) | 0.42 |
Black | .74(.53) | − 0.45 | 6.95(57.72) | 0.01 | 1.02(1.18) | 0.19 |
Hispanic | .93(.61) | − 0.32 | 4.99(41.43) | 0.01 | 1.91(1.99) | 0.72 |
Native America | .39(.26) | − 0.90 | 3.47(28.78) | 0.01 | 1.95(1.88) | 0.61 |
Mixed race | .33(.23) | − 1.01 | 3.45(28.67) | 0.01 | 6.08(6.00) | 1.77 |
Gender | .25(.96) | − 0.12 | .33(1.44) | 1.60 | .18(.86) | − 0.69 |
Religion | ||||||
Christianity | .56(1.56) | 1.24 | .37(1.15) | 0.44 | .35(1.15) | 0.48 |
Islam | .53(1.45) | 1.01 | .34(1.12) | 0.41 | 1.59(1.24) | 0.17 |
Buddhism | (5.67)5.23 | 1.53 | 5.23(5.67) | 1.53 | .50(.49) | − 0.69 |
Judaism | 1.76(1.85) | 0.65 | .41(.36) | − 0.88 | 1.18(1.49) | 0.51 |
Other religion | 17.65(12.64) | 1.82 | .63(.74) | − 0.34 | 2.34(2.71) | 1.16 |
Registered voter | .25(.64) | − 1.11 | .46(1.30) | 0.76 | .42(1.24) | 0.65 |
Region | ||||||
North Central | .64(1.61) | 1.19 | .16(.43) | − 2.26* | .36(1.04) | 0.13 |
South | .58(1.46) | 0.96 | .19(.56) | − 1.62 | .28(.85) | − 0.46 |
West | .58(1.47) | 0.97 | .22(.66) | − 1.20 | .28(.86) | − 0.43 |
Sexual orientation | .42(.64) | − 0.67 | 1.67(2.57) | 1.45 | .70(1.58) | 1.04 |
Constant | 12.76(7.07) | 1.08 | 1.11(5.19) | − 0.02 | 4.16(3.02) | 0.80 |
Log likelihood | − 228.37 | − 284.14 | − 315.60 | |||
LR statistic (37 df) | 257.38 | 139.53 | 184.30 | |||
Probability (LR stat) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |||
0.3604 | 0.1971 | 0.2260 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. SE , standard error; OR , odds ratio
Reference categories: 1 no trust; 2 moderates; 3 single; 4 high school; 5 $100,000 + ; 6 other political parties; 7 Asian; 8 no religion; 9 North Central
Model I estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards laws and policies that separate parents from children at the border. Model II estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards accepting refugees and immigrants facing danger in their home countries in the USA. Model III estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards making conditions difficult for undocumented immigrants, so they return to their home country
Furthermore, approximately, 37% of the respondents favor this policy while 63% disagree. After estimating the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards building a wall against immigrants in the USA while controlling for other variables, the model was significant ( F = 441.92; p < 0.001) and had 51% of the variance in the data (see model IV). After controlling for the effect of other variables in the model, the USA as a moral example on immigrant policy globally ( t = 3.35, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 2.44, trust in Trump’s presidency ( t = − 7.70, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.06, political ideology–conservative ( t = − 3.36, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.36, divorce ( t = 3.67, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.17, republicans ( t = − 2.23, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 0.03, and North Central ( t = 2.38, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 2.78 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards building a wall against immigrants in the USA.
Also, about 36% of the respondents favor laws preventing immigrants from entering and 64% oppose the policy. After estimating the effect of geopolitics on public attitude towards laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA while controlling for other variables, the model was significant ( F = 172.00; p < 0.001) and explained about 21% of the variance in the data (see model V). After controlling for the effect of other variables in the model, the USA as a good moral example on immigration policy globally ( t = 2.40, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 1.67, trust in Trump’s presidency ( t = − 2.69, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 0.50, political ideology–conservative ( t = − 3.18, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 0.45, and respondents with an income of $24,999 and below ( t = − 2.53, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 0.39 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA.
Likewise, about 53% of the respondents’ favor police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background while 47% of the respondents’ opposed police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background. After estimating the effect of geopolitics and other variables on the outcome variable public attitude towards police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background, the model was significant ( F = 256.74; p < 0.001) and explained a significant portion (29%) of the variance in the data (see model VI). The model revealed that the USA as a moral example on immigration policy globally ( t = 2.62, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 1.77, trust in Trump’s presidency ( t = − 4.13, p < 0.001) with an odds ratio of 0.29, political ideology–liberals ( t = 2.59, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 1.89, and conservatives ( t = -2.61, p < 0.01) with an odds ratio of 0.52, and region–South ( t = − 2.38, p < 0.05) with an odds ratio of 0.44 were found to be significant predictors of public attitude towards police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants with criminal background in the USA. The existing literature is replete with similar findings (Table (Table5; 5 ; see Provine & Sanchez, 2011 ; Dzordzormenyoh, 2022 ; Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins, 2022 ).
Effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards immigration policy (building a wall against immigrants/preventing immigrants from entering the USA/police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background) in the USA
Variables | model IV | model V | model V | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE(OR) | t/F | SE(OR) | t/F | SE(OR) | t/F | |
Geopolitics–red and blue state | .30(.91) | − 0.26 | .24(.92) | − 0.29 | .36(1.31) | 1.01 |
The USA as a moral example | .65(2.44) | 3.35*** | .36(1.67) | 2.40* | .38(1.77) | 2.62** |
Trust in political institutions | ||||||
Trump’s presidency | .02(.06) | − 7.70*** | .12(.50) | − 2.69** | .08(.29) | − 4.13*** |
Congress | .26(.79) | − 0.68 | .32(1.11) | 0.36 | .23(.84) | − 0.62 |
Political ideology | ||||||
Liberal | .65(1.81) | 1.65 | .45(1.67) | 1.89 | .47(1.89) | 2.59** |
Conservative | .10(.36) | − 3.36*** | .11(.45) | − 3.18** | .13(.52) | − 2.61** |
Age | .01(.99) | − 0.16 | .00(1.00) | 0.04 | .00(.99) | − 1.25 |
Rural–urban residency | .35(1.18) | 0.55 | .35(1.55) | 1.92 | .28(1.18) | 0.72 |
Homeownership | .76(2.21) | 2.30* | .36(1.37) | 1.20 | .28(1.10) | 0.39 |
Marital status | ||||||
Divorced | .08(.17) | − 3.67*** | .37(1.02) | 0.07 | .27(.79) | − 0.66 |
Widowed | .36(.62) | − 0.81 | .52(1.21) | 0.45 | .34(.78) | − 0.56 |
Married | .20(.49) | − 1.71 | .20(.68) | − 1.27 | .24(.83) | − 0.61 |
Educational status | ||||||
College | .24(.75) | − 0.87 | .28(1.17) | 0.65 | .29(1.17) | 0.65 |
Graduate + | .39(.88) | − 0.27 | .47(1.40) | 1.01 | .38(1.14) | 0.39 |
Employment | .36(1.13) | 0.39 | .20(.83) | − 0.74 | .22(.91) | − 0.34 |
Income | ||||||
Up to $24,999 | .32(.63) | − 0.87 | .14(.39) | − 2.53* | .44(1.14) | 0.36 |
$25,000 − $49,999 | .40(.95) | − 0.11 | .32(1.00) | 0.02 | .44(1.32) | 0.85 |
$50,000 − $100,000 | .37(1.04) | 0.12 | .40(1.43) | 1.28 | .37(1.30) | 0.92 |
Party identification | ||||||
Republican | .04(.03) | − 2.23* | 1.00(.96) | − 0.03 | .33(.34) | − 1.10 |
Democrat | .45(.28) | − 0.79 | 2.46(2.35) | 0.81 | 1.47(1.52) | 0.43 |
Independent | .16(.10) | − 1.45 | 1.65(1.59) | 0.45 | .84(.88) | − 0.13 |
Race | ||||||
White | 1.00(.83) | − 0.15 | .54(.58) | − 0.58 | .42(.50) | − 0.81 |
Black | 1.54(1.23) | 0.17 | .70(.73) | − 0.33 | .31(.36) | − 1.15 |
Hispanic | .99(.73) | − 0.23 | .47(.46) | − 0.75 | 1.33(1.37) | 0.33 |
Native America | 1.18(.84) | − 0.12 | .60(.54) | − 0.55 | 1.16(1.10) | 0.09 |
Mixed race | 2.84(2.10) | 0.55 | .55(.54) | − 0.60 | .39(.38) | − 0.93 |
Gender | .16(.59) | − 1.85 | .19(.93) | − 0.34 | .16(.77) | − 1.18 |
Religion | ||||||
Christianity | .35(.96) | − 0.10 | .40(1.41) | 1.21 | .32(1.11) | 0.38 |
Islam | .29(.98) | 0.13 | .39(1.21) | 1.10 | .30(1.13) | 0.35 |
Buddhism | 8.66(4.09) | 0.67 | 3.98(3.18) | 0.93 | .54(.53) | − 0.62 |
Judaism | 1.33(1.49) | 0.45 | .55(.83) | − 0.27 | 1.05(1.53) | 0.62 |
Other religion | 6.44(5.74) | 1.56 | 1.60(2.10) | 0.97 | .41(.64) | − 0.68 |
Registered voter | .40(.95) | − 0.10 | .32(1.03) | 0.11 | .44(1.42) | 1.14 |
Region | ||||||
North Central | 1.19(2.78) | 2.38* | .26(.76) | − 0.79 | .25(.71) | − 0.95 |
South | .76(1.84) | 1.46 | .37(1.09) | 0.27 | .15(.44) | − 2.38* |
West | .66(1.60) | 1.15 | .30(.92) | − 0.24 | .25(.78) | − 0.75 |
Sexual orientation | .34(.43) | − 1.05 | .33(.76) | − 0.61 | .19(.39) | − 1.86 |
Constant | 215.85(109.93) | 2.39 | 2.47(1.77) | 0.41 | 8.47(6.29) | 1.37 |
Log likelihood | − 210.12 | − 322.97 | − 321.65 | |||
LR statistic (37 df) | 441.92 | 172.00 | 256.74 | |||
Probability (LR stat) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |||
R | 0.5126 | 0.2103 | 0.2853 |
Model IV estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards building a wall against immigrants. Model V estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards laws preventing immigrants from entering the USA. Model VI estimates the effect of geopolitics and other variables on public attitude towards police stops targeted at undocumented immigrants and immigrants with a criminal background
Discussion and Conclusion
Everywhere in the world, the topic of immigration (especially undocumented) becomes a controversial issue and evinces serious and intense debates (Boateng et al., 2021 ; Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins, 2022 ). However, in the USA, the controversy is more prevalent, and most people hold strong anti-immigration sentiments. A significant number of Americans believe that immigration increases local crime rates or immigrants commit more crime (see McCann & Boateng, 2019 , 2020 ; Passel & Rohal, 2015 for a review). This anti-immigration sentiment has led to the proliferation of immigration policies at both the federal and local levels to curtail the entrance of immigrants into the country. At the federal level, in recent times, the Trump administration issued a sweeping executive order to prevent citizens from certain countries from entering USA and also to reduce the number of legal immigrants. For instance, “executive order signed on January 27, 2017, prevented refugees from Syria from entering the U.S. indefinitely” (McCann & Boateng, 2020 , p. 159). At the local level, several US cities have implemented or enacted policies and ordinances to address issues about immigration in their communities (Walker & Leitner, 2011 ). Whereas most of these policies are exclusionary in nature and aim to prevent or limit immigration, a few of such policies are largely inclusionary such as the sanctuary policies implemented by cities like San Francisco and others. The primary purpose of this paper is not to survey local or federal immigration policies in the USA but to examine, from the citizens’ perspective, what influences support for immigration policies.
Public support for immigration-related policies and laws—whether anti or pro—is a complex phenomenon to study and understand. The complexity is because immigration itself is a complex concept and has several dimensions. Also, understanding public support is difficult because of the multiplexity of variables that affect citizens’ support. However, the few available studies on this issue have observed the importance of geographical location in shaping attitudes toward immigration policies (Haubert & Fussell, 2006 ; Walker & Leitner, 2011 ; Winders, 2007 ). These studies have observed a statistically significant relationship between location and anti-immigration policy attitudes, arguing that such attitudes are more common in the South than in other regions of the USA. In our multivariate analysis, we observed a limited effect of geography on Americans’ support for immigration policies because, of the three geography-related variables included in the analysis, only one had some influence. Specifically, we did not find any effect for geopolitics on whether citizens will support or oppose any of the five immigration-related policies we examined. This observation implies that citizens in red and blue states do not differ in terms of their support. While this observation contradicts the notion that because blue states tend to have more positive views about immigration, people in that states may support pro-immigration policies than those in red states, it raises questions about the complexities and diversities that exist in the various states and the need to accommodate such uniqueness. There may be other factors that citizens may consider beyond simply living in a red or blue state or voting for a republican or democrat candidate. Factors such as the socio-economic conditions of the state and individuals may weigh heavily on people’s decision than just geopolitics.
Also, despite the literature observing the rural–urban effect, our analysis failed to make such observation. Prior studies suggest that rural folks in the USA tend to support restrictive immigration policies than their city folks, because they are likely to hold negative views about multiculturalism. The intergroup contact hypothesis, which argues that public interactions and contacts with immigrants have a positive effect on the citizens’ attitudes, may better explain why some scholars think rural folks tend to support restrictive immigration policies. Historically, immigrants are less likely to reside in rural areas due to the lack of or limited social and economic opportunities (McCann & Boateng, 2020 ). This reduces the number of immigrants in such areas and further limits native-born interactions with immigrants. Hence, according to this line of reasoning, rural residents will end up supporting anti-immigration policies than city residents who are likely to have increased contact with foreign-born citizens. Although this argument is impressive, we did not see any difference between the two groups with regard to the six immigration policies examined.
The only geographical variable that we found predicting support for immigration policies was the regional variable. That is, regional location is important in understanding people’s decision to support or oppose an immigration policy. Specifically, we observed that people in North Central tend to have favorable attitudes toward immigration policies compared to those in Northeast. These people are likely to oppose policies or laws that aim to ban immigration into USA as well as those that separate children from their parents. However, comparatively, Southern states tend to support policies that empower police officers to target undocumented immigrants in the communities than the Northeastern states. This observation offers credence to the prior argument that Southerners were more likely to hold negative views about immigrants due to certain unique characteristics of the South, such as their past legacies of racism and segregation (Haubert & Fussell, 2006 ).
Politics, for long, has been considered as an important factor in shaping public opinion about immigration and immigration-related policies (MacDonald, 2021 ). For example, it has been widely argued that ideological preferences of political parties as well as party affiliation of people play a critical role in public support. Liberals tend to hold favorable attitudes toward pro-immigration policies than their conservative colleagues. In this study, while we did not compare liberals to conservatives, we still observed the significant role of politics in forming attitudes toward immigration policies. Compared to moderates, liberals are more likely to oppose policies that allow police officers to target undocumented immigrants in the communities. Apart from this specific policy, there was no difference in terms of other policies. However, conservatives are more likely to support restrictive immigration policies than the moderates. That is, policies such as those related to border wall, banning of immigrants, separation of children from parents, not accepting refugees into the USA, and policies that make conditions for undocumented immigrants difficult as well as those that allow the police to target undocumented immigrants are likely to receive conservatives’ support than moderates’ support. This conclusion supports the notion that conservatives are philosophically anti-immigration, hold negative feelings about immigrants, and do not want immigrants in the USA. In addition to political ideology, we found that party identification is also important, with self-identified republicans agreeing with or supporting policies that prevent refugees from coming to the USA. This finding is important because it validates the ideological effects discussed earlier and also gives sense of what policies republicans make or are likely to implement when they are in government.
Past research has found demographic effects on public opinion about immigration and support for immigration-related policies. These studies believe that support and attitudes vary across characteristics such as race, education, income, gender, age, class status, or unemployment (Burns & Gimpel, 2000 ; Chandler & Tsai, 2001 ; Coenders et al., 2008 ; Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014 ; Haubert & Fussell, 2006 ; Mayda, 2006 ; Neal & Bohon, 2003 ; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006 ). The observation is that individuals that are older, possess low socio-economic capital, are less educated, are in working class, and are unemployed tend to express strong anti-immigration sentiments and are less likely to support pro-immigration-related policies. While we did not observe effect for some of these variables, we found that age, marital status, and income strongly influence support for immigration policies. Specifically, older people are more likely to disagree with policies that aim to separate children from parents whereas married people are less likely to support policies that prevent refugees from entering into USA. The low-income earners (those earning $24,999 or less) tend to express favorable attitudes toward immigration policies than the high-income earners (those earning above $100 k). These low-income earners are more likely to oppose policies that aim to make the life of undocumented immigrants unbearable. This observation and behavior are surprising, given the position of prior studies on this relationship. Proponents of the instrumental group conflict theory suggest that fear of economic competition from immigrants enhances anti-immigration sentiments among the natives, especially the poor and uneducated segments of the US population (Dzordzormenyoh & Perkins, 2022 ; McCann & Boateng, 2020 ).
The present study, like most empirical studies, have some limitations worth mentioning. First, the results presented above are based on analysis of survey data which sometimes have desirability bias—survey respondents adjusting their answers during interviews and surveys to appear credible which might not necessarily reflect their actual deposition. Desirability bias as a weakness of survey data can affect the current results; and therefore, we caution readers against further interpretation of the results presented in this study. Second, the geopolitics variable utilized in the present study examines only one election cycle—2106—which limits our ability to ascertain the actual influence of this variable on public support for immigration politics in the USA. We were also cautious in ensuring that the immigration issues considered correlated with the time of the geopolitics variable used in the present study. Future studies can examine the effect of geopolitics on immigration from a historical perspective and also adopt longer time frames to aid our understanding of the topic.
Despite the above study’s limitations, our findings have implications for both research and policy development. In terms of research, our findings extend the literature on immigration by exploring how citizens perceive immigration policies. This is a significant contribution to the literature since the majority of the attitudinal studies have focused exclusively on understanding anti-immigration sentiments and how citizens form their views about immigrants. Also, some of these studies have focused on understanding the immigration-crime relationship. By examining public support for immigration policies, we fill in gaps in the existing literature. Practically, our findings are useful for developing immigration policies that are based not on sentiments but on empirical evidence.
Declarations
The authors declare no competing interests.
1 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI)—a non-profit, non-partisan, and independent research organization. https://www.prri.org . Accessed: Oct. 9, 2021.
2 Data source was from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), https://www.prri.org . Accessed: Oct. 9, 2021.
3 Q1a: Building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico: strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose.
4 Q1c: Passing laws to prevent refugees and immigrants from entering the U.S.
5 Q1d: An immigration border policy that separates children from parents and charges parents as criminals when they enter the country without permission.
6 Q4a: We should provide refugee and protection to all people who come to the U.S. when they are facing serious danger in their home country.
7 Q4c: The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to make conditions so difficult for illegal immigrants that they return to their home country on their own.
8 Q1b: Requiring police to check the criminality and immigration status of a person they have stopped or detained if they suspect the person of being in the country illegally: strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose.
Red states: Alaska (AK), Idaho (ID), Utah (UT), Arizona (AZ), Montana (MT), Wyoming (WY), North Dakota (NM), South Dakota (SD), Nebraska (NE), Kansas (KS), Oklahoma (OK), Texas (TX), Iowa (IA), Missouri (MO), Arkansas (AR), Louisiana (LA), Indiana (IN), Kentucky (KY), Tennessee (TN), Mississippi (MS), Wisconsin (WI), Ohio (OH), West Virginia (WV), North Carolina (NC), Alabama (AL), Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), South Carolina (SC), Georgia (GA), and Florida (FL).
Blue states: Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), California (CA), Hawaii (HI), Nevada (NV), Colorado (CO), New Mexico (NM), Minnesota (MN), Illinois (IL), Virginia (VA), New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ), Maryland (MD), District of Columbia (DC), Vermont (VT), Massachusetts (MA), Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE), Maine (ME), New Hampshire (NH), and Rhode Island (RI).
10 Q.3: Who do you trust most to handle immigration issues? Democrats in Congress or Republicans in Congress or the Trump administration or None.
11 Q4b: America today sets a good moral example for the world? Completely agree or mostly agree or completely disagree or mostly disagree.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Michael K. Dzordzormenyoh, Email: ude.tnek@ozdrozdm .
Francis D. Boateng, Email: ude.ssimelo@gnetaobf .
References
- Alba RD, Nee V. Remaking the American mainstream assimilation and contemporary immigration. Harvard University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
- Allen R, Goetz EG. A home for xenophobia: U.S. public housing policy under Trump. International Journal of Housing Policy. 2021; 21 (1):127–137. doi: 10.1080/19491247.2020.1803533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Bessett D, Gerdts C, Littman LL, Kavanaugh ML, Norris A. Does state-level context matter for individuals’ knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the “red states v. blue states” hypothesis. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2015; 17 (6):733–746. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2014.994230. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Boateng FD, Pryce DK, Chenane JL. I may be an immigrant, but I am not a criminal: Examining the association between the presence of immigrants and crime rates in Europe. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 2021; 22 (3):1105–1124. doi: 10.1007/s12134-020-00790-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Bowling B, Westenra S. Racism, immigration, and policing. In: Bosworth M, Parmar A, Vázquez Y, editors. Race, criminal justice and migration control: Enforcing the boundaries of belonging. Oxford University Press; 2017. pp. 61–77. [ Google Scholar ]
- Braaten D, Braaten CN. Children seeking asylum: Determinants of asylum claims by unaccompanied minors in the United States from 2013 to 2017. Law & Policy. 2021; 43 (2):97–125. doi: 10.1111/lapo.12165. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Brown RK, Brown RE. Race, religion, and immigration policy attitudes. Race and Social Problems. 2017; 9 (1):4–18. doi: 10.1007/s12552-017-9201-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Burns P, Gimpel JG. Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly. 2000; 115 (2):201–225. doi: 10.2307/2657900. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Ceobanu AM, Escandell X. East is West? National feelings and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe. Social Science Research. 2008; 37 (4):1147–1170. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.01.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Chandler CR, Tsai YM. Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. The Social Science Journal. 2001; 38 (2):177–188. doi: 10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00106-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Chenane JL, Wright EM. The Role of police officer race/ethnicity on crime rates in immigrant communities. Race and Justice. 2021; 11 (1):3–27. doi: 10.1177/2153368718777278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Coenders M, Lubbers M, Scheepers P. Support for repatriation policies of migrants: Comparisons across and explanations for European countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2008; 49 (2–3):175–194. doi: 10.1177/0020715208088911. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Crisp RJ, Turner RN. Imagined intergroup contact: Refinements, debates, and clarifications. In: Hodson G, Hewstone M, editors. Advances in intergroup contact. Psychology Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
- Davis, L., & Deole, S. (2015). Immigration, attitudes, and the rise of the political right: The role of cultural and economic concerns over immigration. Retrieved September 16, 2021, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2727101 . Accessed 24 Oct 2021.
- Davisson A. Beyond the borders of red and blue states: Google Maps as a site of rhetorical invention in the 2008 presidential election. Rhetoric & Public Affairs. 2011; 14 (1):101–123. doi: 10.1353/rap.2011.0005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Dixon J, Durrheim K, Tredoux C. Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 (10):867–872. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Docquier F, Rapoport H, Salomone S. Remittances, migrants’ education and immigration policy: Theory and evidence from bilateral data. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 2012; 42 (5):817–828. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.10.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Dzordzormenyoh MK. Fear of immigrants, support for exclusionary immigration policies & police stops against illegal immigrants with a criminal background in the US. Migration & Diversity. 2022; 1 (1):41–57. doi: 10.33182/md.v1i1.2859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Dzordzormenyoh MK, Perkins D. Immigration in the United States: Exploring the factors that predict public support for police stops targeted at illegal immigrants & immigrants with criminal background. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 2022; 23 (3):1545–1566. doi: 10.1007/s12134-021-00904-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Feldmeyer B. Immigration and violence: The offsetting effects of immigrant concentration on Latino violence. Social Science Research. 2009; 38 (3):717–731. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Finley L, Esposito L. The immigrant as bogeyman: Examining Donald Trump and the right’s anti-immigrant Anti-PC Rhetoric. Humanity & Society. 2020; 44 (2):178–197. doi: 10.1177/0160597619832627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Florack A, Piontkowski U, Rohmann A, Balzer T, Perzig S. Perceived intergroup threat and attitudes of host community members toward immigrant acculturation. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2003; 143 (5):633–648. doi: 10.1080/00224540309598468. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Garcia, C., & Davidson, T. (2013). Are rural people more anti-immigrant than urban people? A comparison of attitudes toward immigration in the United States. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28 (1), 4–30. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448&context=jrss . Accessed: Oct. 24, 2021.
- Giuliano, P., & Tabellini, M. (2020). The seeds of ideology: Historical immigration and political preferences in the United States (No. w27238). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved September 16, 2021, from https://www.nber.org/papers/w27238 . 10.3386/w27238. Accessed 24 Oct 2021.
- Glass, J., & Levchak, P. (2014). Red states, blue states, and divorce: Understanding the impact of conservative Protestantism on regional variation in divorce rates. American Journal of Sociology , 119 (4), 1002–1046. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/674703?casa_token=ZTf-4MSp92kAAAAA:eaeGxrGP07nML89VMAjjDmMErmv6qsJdKRcAZM6HBIa-cePLxG7lRan8RY1Ne3PAu3mX58_WmAjlkA . Accessed: Oct. 24, 2021. [ PubMed ]
- Goodman A. The long history of self-deportation: Trump’s anti-immigrant policies build on more than a century of attempts to create fear and terror within U.S. immigrant communities. NACLA Report on the Americas (1993) 2017; 49 (2):152–158. doi: 10.1080/10714839.2017.1331811. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Gorodzeisky A, Semyonov M. Not only competitive threat but also racial prejudice: Sources of anti-immigrant attitudes in European societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2016; 28 (3):331–354. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edv024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Haaland I, Roth C. Labor market concerns and support for immigration. Journal of Public Economics. 2020; 191 :104256. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104256. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ. Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science. 2014; 17 :225–249. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Haubert J, Fussell E. Explaining pro-immigrant sentiment in the US: Social class, cosmopolitanism, and perceptions of immigrants. International Migration Review. 2006; 40 (3):489–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00033.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Hébert Y, Sun XS, Kowch E. Focusing on children and youth: The role of social capital in educational outcomes in the context of immigration and diversity. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 2004; 5 (2):229–249. doi: 10.1007/s12134-004-1011-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Isaacs, A., Burns, N., Macdonald, S., & O’Donnell, C. A. (2020). ‘I don’t think there’s anything I can do which can keep me healthy’: How the UK immigration and asylum system shapes the health & wellbeing of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. Critical Public Health, 1–11.
- Kilty KM, de Haymes MV. Racism, nativism, and exclusion: Public policy, immigration, and the Latino experience in the United States. Journal of Poverty. 2000; 4 (1–2):1–25. doi: 10.1300/J134v04n01_01. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Knoll BR. “And who is my neighbor?” Religion and immigration policy attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2009; 48 (2):313–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01449.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kudrle RT. Hegemony strikes out: The U.S. global role in antitrust, tax evasion, and illegal immigration. International Studies Perspectives. 2003; 4 (1):52–71. doi: 10.1111/1528-3577.04104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Lee Y-T, Ottati V, Hussain I. Attitudes toward “illegal” immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2001; 23 (4):430–443. doi: 10.1177/0739986301234005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Levendusky MS, Pope JC. Red states vs blue states: Going beyond the mean. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2011; 75 (2):227–248. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Lichter DT. Immigration and the new racial diversity in rural America. Rural Sociology. 2012; 77 (1):3–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-083l.2012.00070.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Light MT, Miller T. Does undocumented immigration increase violent crime? Criminology (beverly Hills) 2018; 56 (2):370–401. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12175. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- MacDonald D. Political trust and support for immigration in the American mass public. British Journal of Political Science. 2021; 51 (4):1402–1420. doi: 10.1017/S0007123419000668. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Major B, Blodorn A, Major Blascovich G. The threat of increasing diversity: Why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2018; 21 (6):931–940. doi: 10.1177/1368430216677304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Manley E. Building an uncertain empire?: The U.S. politics of hegemony in the early twentieth century. Reviews in American History. 2017; 45 (2):275–280. doi: 10.1353/rah.2017.0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- May AM, McGarvey MG. Gender, occupational segregation, and the cultural divide: Are red states different than blue states? The Review of Regional Studies. 2017; 47 (2):175–199 . doi: 10.52324/001c.8022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Mayda AM. Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The review of Economics and Statistics. 2006; 88 (3):510–530. doi: 10.1162/rest.88.3.510. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Mayda AM, Steingress W, Peri G. The Political Impact of Immigration: Evidence from the United States. 2018 doi: 10.3386/w24510. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- McCann WS, Boateng FD. National security and policy in America: Immigrants, crime, and the securitization of the border. Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
- McCann WS, Boateng FD. An examination of American perceptions of the immigrant-crime relationship. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2020; 45 (6):973–1002. doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09528-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- McCann WS, Zhang S, Boateng FD. Immigrants, crime, and the American dream: Testing a segmented assimilation theory of crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2021; 66 (5):560–586. doi: 10.1177/0306624X21994061. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- McKanders, K. M. (2018). Immigration to blue cities in red states: The battleground between sanctuary and exclusion. U. Pa. J. Const. L. , 21 , 1051. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/upjcl21&div=36&id=&page= . Accessed: Oct. 24, 2021.
- McLaren L. Immigration, national identity and political trust in European democracies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2017; 43 (3):379–399. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1197772. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Meuleman B, Davidov E, Billiet J. Changing attitudes toward immigration in Europe, 2002–2007: A dynamic group conflict theory approach. Social Science Research. 2009; 38 (2):352–365. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Miller PR, Conover PJ. Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly. 2015; 68 (2):225–239. doi: 10.1177/1065912915577208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Neal M, Bohon S. The Dixie diaspora: Attitudes toward immigrants in Georgia. Sociological Spectrum. 2003; 23 (2):181–212. doi: 10.1080/02732170309215. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Nivola PS, Brady DW. Red and blue nation?: Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics. Brookings Institution Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
- O'rourke KH, Sinnott R. The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy. 2006; 22 (4):838–861. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2005.10.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Passel, J., & Rohal, M. (2015). Modern immigration wave brings 59 million to US, driving population growth and change through 2065. Pew Research Center. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/23118/23118.pdf . Accessed 24 Oct 2021.
- Provine DM, Sanchez G. Suspecting immigrants: Exploring links between racialised anxieties and expanded police powers in Arizona. Policing & Society. 2011; 21 (4):468–479. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2011.614098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Pryce DK. U.S. citizens’ current attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: A study from the General Social Survey. Social Science Quarterly. 2018; 99 (4):1467–1483. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12514. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Rocha RR, Knoll BR, Wrinkle RD. Immigration enforcement and the redistribution of political trust. The Journal of Politics. 2015; 77 (4):901–913. doi: 10.1086/681810. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Rodden, J. (2005). Red states, blue states, and the welfare state: Political geography, representation, and government policy around the world. Typescript, Department of Political Science, MIT . https://web.mit.edu/jrodden/www/materials/rodden_michigan_dec05.pdf . Accessed: Oct. 24, 2021.
- Sampson RJ. Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. The American Journal of Sociology. 2008; 114 (1):189–231. doi: 10.1086/589843. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Sampson RJ, Bean L. Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community-level racial inequality. In: Peterson RD, Krivo LJ, Hagan J, editors. The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity and crime in America. New York University Press; 2006. pp. 8–36. [ Google Scholar ]
- Sanders L, Heineman E. German Iowa and the Global Midwest: Discussing immigration and xenophobia in the Trump Era. The Public Historian. 2020; 42 (1):98–125. doi: 10.1525/tph.2020.42.1.98. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Schlueter E, Scheepers P. The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat- and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research. 2010; 39 (2):285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Stangor C, Jonas K, Stroebe W, Hewstone M. Influence of student exchange on national stereotypes, attitudes and perceived group variability. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1996; 26 (4):663–675. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199607)26:4<663::AID-EJSP778>3.0.CO;2-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Stanhope KK, Hogue CR, Suglia SF, Leon JS, Kramer MR. Restrictive sub-federal immigration policy climates and very preterm birth risk among US-born and foreign-born Hispanic mothers in the United States, 2005–2016. Health & Place. 2019; 60 :102209–102209. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102209. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Walker KE, Leitner H. The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography. 2011; 32 (2):156–178. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.2.156. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Winders J. Bringing back the (b)order: Post 9/11 politics of immigration, borders, and belonging in the contemporary U.S South. Antipode. 2007; 39 :920–942. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00563.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Multiple Facets of Migration Research: Key Questions, Topics, and Avenues yet to Be Explored
- December 2019
- Sustainability 12(1):225
- SGH Warsaw School of Economics | Deree College | Effat University
- Effat University
- SGH Warsaw School of Economics
Discover the world's research
- 25+ million members
- 160+ million publication pages
- 2.3+ billion citations
- Galina Ševčenko-Kozlovska
- Kristina Čižiūnienė
- Erick G. Varela-Guzmán
- Marek Piotrowski
- María Luisa Pertegal Felices
- Hemant Mishra
- Zainul Abedin
- María Luisa Pertegal-Felices
- David James Cantor
- Farai Chikwanha
- Recruit researchers
- Join for free
- Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
- MPI en Español
- All Publications
- Fact Sheets
- Policy Briefs
- Commentaries
- Press Releases
- Work at MPI
- Intern at MPI
- Contact MPI
- Internships
- International Program
- Migrants, Migration, and Development
- National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy
- U.S. Immigration Policy Program
- Beyond Territorial Asylum
- Building a Regional Migration System
- Global Skills and Talent
- Latin America and Caribbean Initiative
- Migration Data Hub
- Migration Information Source
- Transatlantic Council on Migration
- ELL Information Center
Topics see all >
- Border Security
- Coronavirus
- Employment & the Economy
- Illegal Immigration & Interior Enforcement
- Immigrant Integration
- Immigrant Profiles & Demographics
- Immigration Policy & Law
- International Governance
- Migration & Development
- Refugee & Asylum Policy
Regions see all >
- Africa (sub-Saharan)
- Asia and the Pacific
- Central America & the Caribbean
- Middle East & North Africa
- North America
- South America
- International Data
Featured Publication
The New Immigrant Survey in the U.S.: The Experience over Time
Immigration affects American society in profound ways. Yet in perhaps no other area of social science and public policy research has there been as large a gap between information needs and existing data. Consequently, many fundamental questions remain unanswered. These include the following: How does the health and well-being of immigrants compare to that of the native born? How many immigrants return to their home country? What is the relationship between legal and illegal immigration? What are the contributions and costs of immigrants to the economy? What are the factors affecting the assimilation of immigrants and their children? What are the achievements of, and burdens imposed by, immigrant children and the children of immigrants?
Embedded in immigration questions are further questions that run the gamut of human experience, from processes of language acquisition to identity formation, to achievement of excellence and development of civic virtue.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Throughout 2013, immigration reform has captured public attention. Millions of people followed S. 744 as it worked its way through committee and watched as the Senate voted 68 to 32 to pass a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In the next few months, immigration reform will be high on the list of priorities in the House of Representatives.
The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 46.1 million in 2022. Growth accelerated after Congress made U.S. immigration laws more permissive in 1965. In 1970, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. was less than a quarter of what it is today. Immigrants today account for 13.8% of the U.S. population.
In fiscal 2019, the U.S. government awarded more than 139,000 employment-based green cards to foreign workers and their families. The Biden administration's proposed legislation could boost the number of employment-based green cards, which are capped at about 140,000 per year. The proposal would allow the use of unused visa slots from ...
Immigration is a complex issue that involves the law, the economy, and politics. You could concentrate on one issue and do in-depth research on that, or use several of the questions below to focus more generally on the topic of immigration.
Just 18% of U.S. adults say the government is doing a good job dealing with the large number of migrants at the border. Eight-in-ten say it is doing a bad job, including 45% who say it's doing a very bad job. 1 2 3 … 41. Next Page →. Research and data on Immigration Issues from Pew Research Center.
Immigrants composed an estimated 13.9 percent of the U.S. population in 2022, amounting to roughly 46 million people out of a total of almost 335 million, according to U.S. Census Bureau data ...
This guide seeks to provide answers to many of the most common questions that policymakers, the media, and the public ask about immigration and provides background on what immigration means to the United States as we debate reform of our immigration system. ... Research shows that today's immigrants are integrating into the country just as ...
Overall, the survey includes Americans' views related to several immigration issues, including building a wall along the border between the USA and Mexico, banning refugees from entering the USA, the belief that America sets a good moral example for the world today on issues of immigration, and among other useful questions about immigration ...
an integrated inter- and multidisciplinary research agenda apt to capture the logic, dynamics, and. mechanisms underpinning migration in the modern age. The key assumption underpinning this ...
Large gaps exist in the social science and public policy research on immigration. Guillermina Jasso of New York University, Douglas S. Massey of the University of Pennsylvania, Mark R. Rosenzweig of Harvard University, and James P. Smith of RAND take an in-depth look at the New Immigrant Survey, which aims to bridge the chasm between information needs and existing data.
The survey was conducted Dec. 10 to 15, 2019, and it included two key questions: what Americans think about immigration to the United States on the whole, and what they think about immigration to their local communities. Americans' views on national immigration policy are related to their political affiliations and their proximity to ...
110 Immigration Research Paper Topics. Immigration is the process of people moving to a country and can be either voluntary or involuntary. Immigration is a very interesting aspect of education, and you may be asked at one point or another to come up with a research paper in the immigration niche. Immigration is a broad topic, and it can be ...
The EUMAGINE project addressed these questions from an innovative angle. It looked not only at the role of factors such as socio-economic status and social networks, but also at the impact of perceptions of human rights and democracy. 'Human rights' is understood to include both negative (e.g. democracy, individual liberties, freedom from ...
How the origins of America's immigrants have changed since 1850. In 2022, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. reached a high of 46.1 million, accounting for 13.8% of the population. short readsJul 22, 2024.
So, population growth critically important for its effect on the aggregate economy. And generally speaking, immigrants are far more likely to work than people who are born in the U.S. They have ...
Here are some good immigration topics for research paper dealing with a lawful practice: The impact of legal immigration on the economy of host countries. The challenges of integrating legal immigrants into society. The benefits of skilled immigration for technological advancement.
To help you get started, we've compiled a list of 101 immigration essay topic ideas and examples to inspire your writing. The history of immigration in the United States. The impact of immigration on American culture. Immigration policies and their effects on immigrant communities. The economic benefits of immigration.
Americans have the right to insist on a rational, orderly process of immigration, with clearly defined standards and a carefully crafted selection process. The final question is "how much." To answer, one must consider not only the sheer number of immigrants but also the amount of migration-driven demographic change occurring over time.
rties,many of the most basic facts a. e myths about immigrationand providing short, c. ncise answers to. llenge. Smart, thoughtfulans. ers often take longer than. y. The staf of the ImmigrationPolicy Center (IPC) has pre. ared. get to the heart of the toughest questions on immigration. While. we've included succinct answers to many ...
There are two sides to the immigration: positive and negative. Think about the economy, food, art, sociology, and politics. Decide what are the benefits and downsides of immigration. The following list of topic ideas on migration will help you with this task. International employees fill the gaps in the workforce.
In the U.S., the nation with the world's largest number of immigrants, six-in-ten adults (59%) say immigrants make the country stronger because of their work and talents, while one-third (34%) say immigrants are a burden because they take jobs and social benefits.Views about immigrants have shifted in the U.S. since the 1990s, when most Americans said immigrants were a burden to the country.
Irish Immigration is a broad topic! As you start your research, think about what specific area of the broader topic you could focus on for your project. Once you have a more specific idea identified, it can be helpful to write a research question that will then serve as your foundation for further research. You can check out the Shapiro Library ...
Beneath the surface of their rhetorical heat, the controversies point to three key questions of immigration policy: who, how, and how much. Let's first clear away some misconceptions. Both Trump and Harris's stated views on immigration—which may not, of course, reflect their actual views—are more nuanced than commonly portrayed.
Editor's note: The following collection of immigration reporting resources, story ideas and examples is the fifth in a series of tip sheets for new and experienced journalists covering ...