Reconsidering Group Interests

This paper aims to explore attitudes toward immigration among two non-White groups, Asian Americans and Black Americans. For more than a decade, individuals from Asia have comprised the majority of immigrants entering the United States each year. Today, the majority of the Asian American U.S. population remains foreign-born. Yet using data collected from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey and the 2016 National Asian American Survey—a time period marked by high levels of saliency with regard to immigration issues—we find that Black Americans, the majority of whom are U.S.-born, exhibit even more progressive attitudes towards immigration, both legal and undocumented, than mostly foreign-born Asian Americans. Our research challenges economic and material theories related to immigration attitudes and suggests that political connections to and “linked fate” with other minorities better explain why Black Americans exhibit more progressive attitudes toward immigration than Asian Americans.

Are attitudes toward immigration changing in Europe? An analysis based on latent class IRT models

We analyze the changing attitudes toward immigration in EU host countries in the last few years (2010–2018) on the basis of the European Social Survey data. These data are collected by the administration of a questionnaire made of items concerning different aspects related to the immigration phenomenon. For this analysis, we rely on a latent class approach considering a variety of models that allow for: (1) multidimensionality; (2) discreteness of the latent trait distribution; (3) time-constant and time-varying covariates; and (4) sample weights. Through these models we find latent classes of Europeans with similar levels of immigration acceptance and we study the effect of different socio-economic covariates on the probability of belonging to these classes for which we provide a specific interpretation. In this way we show which countries tend to be more or less positive toward immigration and we analyze the temporal dynamics of the phenomenon under study.

Intervening in Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: The Causal Effects of Factual Information on Attitudes toward Immigration

If preferences on immigration policy respond to facts, widespread misinformation poses an obstacle to consensus. Does factual information about immigration indeed affect policy preferences? Are beliefs about immigration’s societal impact the mechanism through which factual information affects support for increased immigration? To address these questions, we conducted an original survey experiment, in which we presented a nationally representative sample of 2,049 Americans living in the United States with facts about immigrants’ English acquisition and immigrants’ impact on crime, jobs, and taxes—four domains with common misperceptions. Three of these factual domains (immigration’s impact on crime, jobs, and taxes) raise overall support for increased immigration. These facts also affect beliefs that are directly relevant to that information. Moreover, those beliefs mediate the effect of factual information on support for increased immigration. By contrast, information about English acquisition affects neither policy preferences nor beliefs about immigration’s impact. Facts can leverage social cognitions to change policy preferences.

Physiological threat sensitivity predicts anti-immigrant attitudes

Research finds that the perception that immigrants are culturally and economically threatening is associated with negative attitudes toward immigration. In a largely separate body of work, psychophysiological predispositions toward threat sensitivity are connected to a range of political attitudes, including immigration. This article draws together these two literatures, using a lab experiment to explore psychophysiological threat sensitivity and immigration attitudes in the United States. Respondents with higher threat sensitivity, as measured by skin conductance responses to threatening images, tend to be less supportive of immigration. This finding builds on our understanding of the sources of anti-immigrant attitudes.

Authoritarianism and Immigration Attitudes in the UK

Opposition to immigration has featured prominently in the “cultural backlash” to globalization in Western nations and was a key determinant of Britain’s Brexit referendum. In this article, we draw on theories of intergroup threat to examine the effect of “right-wing authoritarianism” on immigration attitudes in the UK. Previous research suggests that cultural aspects of immigration are especially important in shaping anti-immigrant attitudes. We use an original survey measuring attitudes toward immigration from differing skill levels and national origins. We find that right-wing authoritarianism is a much stronger predictor of immigration attitudes than other attributes. In addition, the effect of right-wing authoritarianism varies by immigrant origin, most strongly predicting opposition toward immigrant groups that may be perceived as culturally distant. We also find evidence that these effects are driven by the “aggression” component of right-wing authoritarianism, a facet of authoritarianism that captures a predisposition toward the enforcement of group norms.

Canadian’s attitudes toward immigration in the COVID-19 era

Canada depends on immigration for economic and demographic growth. But fears of COVID-19 and attempts to control its spread have resulted in governments closing borders and/or restricting immigration. Concurrently, increased discrimination against people from Asia, and immigrants in general, has been observed. Based on a national survey, this paper examines whether Canadian’s attitudes toward immigration have shifted with the pandemic. Results suggest that Canadians have concerns regarding immigration and would prefer to see immigration numbers reduced. Increased racism and discrimination directed toward immigrants and racialized individuals is also noted.