Uncertainty About the Size of the Unauthorized Foreign-Born Population in the United States

One of the most common methods for estimating the U.S. unauthorized foreign-born population is the residual method. Over the last decade, residual estimates have typically fallen within a narrow range of 10.5 to 12 million. Yet it remains unclear how sensitive residual estimates are to their underlying assumptions. We examine the extent to which estimates may plausibly vary owing to uncertainties in their underlying assumptions about coverage error, emigration, and mortality. Findings show that most of the range in residual estimates derives from uncertainty about emigration rates among legal permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and humanitarian entrants (LNH); estimates are less sensitive to assumptions about mortality among the LNH foreign-born and coverage error for the unauthorized and LNH populations in U.S. Census Bureau surveys. Nevertheless, uncertainty in all three assumptions contributes to a range of estimates, whereby there is a 50% chance that the unauthorized foreign-born population falls between 9.1 and 12.2 million and a 95% chance that it falls between 7.0 and 15.7 million.

The “ironic” fair process effect: A perceived fair naturalization procedure spurs anti-immigration attitudes through increased host national identification among naturalized citizens

A growing body of research has shown that naturalized citizens’ attitudes towards immigration worsen following citizenship acquisition. Accordingly, these socially mobile individuals tend to distance themselves from their former immigrant ingroup. The present contribution explains such self–group distancing coping strategy in terms of an “ironic” procedural fairness effect. Study 1 ( N = 566), a survey conducted among naturalized Swiss citizens, showed that fairness perceptions with respect to the naturalization process were indeed associated with stronger anti-immigration attitudes, and that this relationship was mediated by identification with the host nation. Next, two experiments were conducted to demonstrate the causality of the hypothesized mediation model. In Study 2 (Experiment 1; N = 248), fairness of the admission procedure (accurate vs. inaccurate) increased identification with a desirable group. In Study 3 (Experiment 2; N = 141), administration of a national identity prime evoked stronger anti-immigration attitudes. Taken together, our findings highlight a somewhat “dark side” of procedural fairness.

Constraining Denaturalization

Citizenship has been treated, since World War II, as a robust political and legal status. Recent political events have prompted the reassessment of the conditions under which it can be justly removed, however. Using the lens of democratic theory, I consider one particular instance of denationalization, namely, the withdrawal of citizenship from naturalized citizens when the granting state believes that the applicant ‘misrepresented’ themselves, that is, engaged in some form of deception, during the process of naturalization. There is an intuitive plausibility to the thought that if an applicant for citizenship lies or fails to provide all of the requested information, she should be denied citizenship. It seems equally plausible that, if citizenship status is nevertheless granted under these conditions, it can be permissibly removed. However, I argue that this conclusion is too quick: to be permissible, denaturalization procedures must be significantly constrained, in the ways that I outline.

Springtime on the Prairie

This chapter describes springtime on the prairie. Canadian geese ply flyways, check ancestral routes against hard memories, against ribbons of rivers. They herald the season, trumpeting the first push of Gulf air. Those who do not live to see first thaw keep the funeral parlors busy. The chapter then talks about the arrival of monks, émigrés come from out of state to tend the monastery's hardwood groves. The monks have become naturalized citizens of a state that specializes in death and dying. For a price, the monks of the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance are pleased to offer an exclusive line of custom-designed caskets and urns for University of Notre Dame alumni and their families.

Contesting Inequality: The Impact of Immigrant Legal Status and Education on Legal Knowledge and Claims-Making in Low-Wage Labor Markets

Low-wage Latina/o workers are subject to an array of workplace abuses. This study focuses on whether educational attainment may moderate inequality in knowledge or claims-making across individuals with different legal statuses. This question is motivated by research which, while highlighting the role of education in promoting civic and political engagement, has not examined the interaction between education and legal status for worker claims-making. We draw from the 2008 Unregulated Work Survey, which is representative of the 1.64 million low-wage workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, three of the largest immigrant destinations in the United States. Using the Latina/o subsample, we test whether education impacts workers’ procedural knowledge of the claims process, as well as their actual claims-making behavior, across four categories of workers: U.S.-born citizens, naturalized citizens, documented noncitizens, and undocumented noncitizens. Our findings reveal that all noncitizens have lower levels of procedural knowledge about how to file a complaint with the government, compared to citizens, across educational levels. However, when it comes to claims-making, we find that education has significant positive impacts for noncitizen workers, especially the undocumented. Our results suggest that education may improve the workplace agency of even the most marginalized workers.

Immigration Status and Disparities in the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (Visit 2, 2014–2017)

Objectives. To estimate treatment rates of high cholesterol, hypertension, and diabetes among Hispanic/Latino immigrants by immigration status (i.e., naturalized citizens, documented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants). Methods. We performed a cross-sectional analyses of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (visit 2, 2014–2017). We restricted our analysis to Hispanic/Latino immigrants with high cholesterol (n = 3974), hypertension (n = 3353), or diabetes (n = 2406); treatment was defined as use of statins, antihypertensives, and antidiabetics, respectively. Results. When compared with naturalized citizens, undocumented and documented immigrants were less likely to receive treatment for high cholesterol (38.4% vs 14.1%; prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.37 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.27, 0.51] and 25.7%; PR = 0.67 [95% CI = 0.58, 0.76]), hypertension (77.7% vs 57.7%; PR = 0.74 [95% CI = 0.62, 0.89] and 68.1%; PR = 0.88 [95% CI = 0.82, 0.94]), and diabetes (60.3% vs. 50.4%; PR = 0.84 [95% CI = 0.68, 1.02] and 55.8%; PR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.83, 1.03]); the latter did not reach statistical significance. Undocumented and documented immigrants had less access to health care, including insurance coverage or a usual health care provider, than naturalized citizens. Therefore, adjusting for health care access largely explained treatment disparities across immigration status. Conclusions. Preventing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic/Latino immigrants should focus on undertreatment of high cholesterol, hypertension, and diabetes by increasing health care access, especially among undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)

Adriano de Jesús Espaillat is the first Dominican American congressperson in the history of the United States. He was elected in 2016 to represent New York State’s 13th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. This district includes the area of Harlem, located in New York City’s northern Manhattan, which is an iconic area of black culture and political history. Congressman Espaillat is the first nonblack official to represent Harlem in seven decades; the district was redrawn in 2012 and currently encompasses two areas of heavy Dominican concentration as well. While there have been many foreign-born members who became naturalized citizens before serving in the US Congress, Espaillat is one of the first two known to have had an undocumented immigration status for some time. His example of political ascent to Congress is relevant in the context of the current national immigration debates and marks a milestone in the political history of Dominican Americans—a group that started migrating significantly in the late 1960s and is currently one of the two largest Hispanic groups in New York City, and the fifth largest Hispanic group in the country. Espaillat’s election illustrates current interactions among minority groups in large cities and new trends in American urban politics; it also shows the great difficulties that candidates of new immigrant groups continue to face in achieving political success. Adriano Espaillat has attracted considerable attention—albeit nonuniform—from numerous printed and electronic political media. However, scholarly works about him are in incipient stages. Research on members of Congress usually takes the form of case studies, minority or Latino politics projects, or specialized encyclopedias or dictionaries. Few of them have been published since Espaillat’s election as a Democratic Representative to the 115th Congress in 2016. The process to create this bibliography has been twofold: first, this is a selection of substantive, informative, and overall balanced sources available in national and local political media, most of them primary sources and some published in Spanish. The collected materials are then placed in relation to different sets of scholarly work: Dominican Americans studies, urban politics, political incorporation of immigrants, and political ascent of ethnic politicians. They provide concepts for understanding—with depth and perspective—Congressman Espaillat’s success.

Putting Americans First: A Statistical Case for Encouraging Rather than Impeding and Devaluing US Citizenship

Executive Summary This article examines the ability of immigrants to integrate and to become full Americans. Naturalization has long been recognized as a fundamental step in that process and one that contributes to the nation’s strength, cohesion, and well-being. To illustrate the continued salience of citizenship, the article compares selected characteristics of native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, legal noncitizens (most of them lawful permanent residents [LPRs]), and undocumented residents. It finds that the integration, success, and contributions of immigrants increase as they advance toward naturalization, and that naturalized citizens match or exceed the native-born by metrics such as a college education, self-employment, average personal income, and homeownership. It finds that: Naturalized citizens enjoy the same or higher levels of education, employment, work in skilled occupations, personal income, and percentage above the poverty level compared to the native-born population. At least 5.2 million current US citizens — 4.5 million children and 730,000 adults — who are living with at least one undocumented parent 1 obtained US citizenship by birth; eliminating birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of US-born denizens in the future. Requiring medical insurance would negatively affect immigrants seeking admission and undocumented residents who ultimately qualify for a visa. About 51 percent of US undocumented residents older than age 18 lack health insurance. In 2017, about 1.2 million undocumented residents lived with 1.1 million eligible-to-naturalize relatives. If all the members of the latter group naturalized, they could petition for or expedite the adjustment or immigration (as LPRs) of their undocumented family members, including 890,000 “immediate relatives.” Their naturalization could put 11 percent of the US undocumented population on a path to permanent residency. The article also explores a contradiction: that the administration’s “America first” ideology obscures a set of policies that impede the naturalization process, devalue US citizenship, and prioritize denaturalization. The article documents many of the ways that the Trump administration has sought to revoke legal status, block access to permanent residence and naturalization, and deny the rights, entitlements, and benefits of citizenship to certain groups, particularly US citizen children with undocumented parents. It also offers estimates and profiles of the persons affected by these measures, and it rebuts myths that have buttressed the administration’s policies. For example, the Trump administration and restrictionist legislators have criticized the US immigration system’s emphasis on family reunification for its supposed failure to produce skilled workers. Yet the article finds that: The current immigration system, which prioritizes the admission of the nuclear family members of US citizens and LPRs, yields a legal foreign-born population that has occupational skills equal to those of the native-born population. The legal foreign-born population living in 24 US states and Washington, DC, and those from 94 source countries 2 have higher percentages of skilled workers than the overall population of native-born workers.