More Royalist Than the King? Immigration Policy Attitudes Among Naturalized Citizens

Social psychological research has analyzed immigration attitudes mostly from the perspective of natives without an immigrant background. Nevertheless, an increasing number of migrants obtain national citizenship and take a stance towards immigration policies. By studying immigration policy attitudes reported by naturalized citizens, this article develops a dual-pathway model of immigrant political incorporation featuring pathways of either absorption or transformation. Based on a unique sample of immigrants who just accomplished the naturalization procedure (N = 566), we investigate participants' preferences for permissive or restrictive immigration policies as a function of their naturalization motives and expectations about how immigrants should acculturate in the receiving society (i.e., acculturation orientations). Our findings provide evidence for both processes of political absorption and transformation. On the one hand, belongingness motives underlying naturalization were connected to orientations towards host culture adoption, which in turn predicted support for restrictive immigration policies. On the other hand, instrumental motives were connected to orientations towards heritage culture maintenance, which in turn predicted support for permissive immigration policies. To conclude, we discuss the social psychological dynamics involved in the transition from national outsiders to national insiders and highlight the effects of naturalization on power relations between national majority and immigrant minority groups.     

Guarding the gates of Europe: A typological analysis of immigration attitudes across 21 countries

With data from the European Social Survey (N = 36,602), individual patterns of three immigration attitudes, referred to as gatekeeping attitudes, were investigated within and across 21 European national contexts. Gatekeeping attitudes, akin to blatant and subtle forms of xenophobia, designate the level of endorsement of different admission standards set for immigrants entering European countries, as well as of expulsion criteria for immigrants transgressing norms and laws. A K‐means cluster analysis, performed on national majority members' scores of endorsement of individual (e.g., language and working skills) and categorical (e.g., skin colour, religion) entry criteria and individual expulsion criteria (e.g., criminal act, long‐term unemployment), yielded a typology of three constrained combinations of these dimensions. Strict gatekeepers favoured all criteria, lenient gatekeepers opposed all criteria, whereas individualist gatekeepers favoured individual and opposed categorical criteria. Membership in typology groups was predicted with a generalized prejudiced attitude construct, social status, and personal contact with immigrants. Lenient gatekeepers were less homophobic, had a higher education level, felt financially less vulnerable, and had more immigrant friends than strict gatekeepers. Individualist gatekeepers held an intermediate position. Variability was observed in all countries, despite the prevalence of a typology group within a given country. Strict gatekeepers were common among participants from Southern and Eastern European nations, lenient gatekeepers in Scandinavian countries, and individualist gatekeepers in Western European countries. Cross‐national differences are discussed in light of European immigration history and policies.     

The impact of national integration policies on prejudice and psychological well-being: The fundamental role of the clarity and coherence of integration policies

Recent advances in social psychological research have shown that national integration policies influence how immigrants are perceived and treated by the mainstream population. However, the processes by which these policies come to have an impact on prejudice and well-being of the general population are largely unknown. Moreover, past research has often relied on unrepresentative samples limiting generalizability. The present research proposes that when the national integration policies of a given society are perceived as clearly defined and coherent, they have a direct impact on the perceived cultural norm related to those national integration policies. In turn, the perceived cultural norm affects personal attitudes toward cultural norms (i.e., the degree to which individuals support a given policy), which influence the level of anti-immigrant prejudice as well as psychological well-being. Findings from two correlational studies with representative samples of the mainstream population conducted in France on the policy of secularism (N = 940) and in Québec on the policy of interculturalism (N = 912) supported the proposed theoretical model.     

Is There a Backlash Against Immigration From Richer Countries? International Hierarchy and the Limits of Group Threat

Why do immigrants from particular countries systematically face more opposition? To resolve inconsistencies of prevailing group‐threat theories, I reintroduce a long‐standing hypothesis stipulating that people have a disposition for maintaining status hierarchy between ethnic groups. Accordingly, independent of perceived economic or cultural threat, natives are more likely to prefer immigrant groups of higher status based on the development level of the group's national origin. To test this argument, I exploit a substantial provincial variation of immigration flows and attitudes in Spain—one of the only countries that has received immigrants from both less and more developed countries. Consistent with my hypothesis, I demonstrate that anti‐immigration attitudes are more widespread in areas with immigrants from less developed countries regardless of their economic and cultural characteristics. I further document that many voters perceive stable group hierarchies and that these preferences are more predictive of anti‐immigration attitudes in lower‐status immigration contexts. Overall, these results suggest that even culturally similar and economically beneficial immigrant groups from poorer countries can face public opposition due to their lower‐status national origin, highlighting the independent role of group‐status perceptions in politics.     

Multiculturalism and acculturation: views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch

The psychological component of immigration in the Netherlands was studied by comparing views on multiculturalism and acculturation orientation of Turkish migrants between Dutch majority (N=1565) and Turkish–Dutch minority (N=185) members. Multiculturalism was measured with an adaptation of the Multicultural Ideology Scale (Berry & Kalin, 1995); acculturation orientation was investigated in different domains of life. The results revealed that Dutch on average had a neutral attitude towards multiculturalism in the Netherlands while Turkish–Dutch showed a more positive attitude. Regarding the acculturation strategies, Dutch adults preferred assimilation above integration of Turkish migrants in all life domains. Turkish–Dutch adults made a distinction in public and private domains: integration was preferred in public domains, and separation in private domains. In public domains both cultural groups agreed that Turkish migrants should adapt to the Dutch culture. In private domains there was no agreement at all in the views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch. These results suggest that the views on acculturation and multiculturalism differ substantially for majority and minority group members. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Keep them out to save our inside:” discourses on immigration by the Spanish far right

Vox is a far-right, Spanish political party that has steadily grown to become the third main party in the national congress. Immigration is a major presence in Vox's political agenda. Through Critical Discourse Analysis, we analyze the party's public speeches and Twitter communications on immigration in the last 3 years, from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 to the Ukraine-Russia war in 2022. These contexts have provided a fertile ground for Vox's concerns with the protection of national borders, the criminalization of African and irregular immigrants, and the Spanish Government's ineffectiveness to protect the Spaniards' homes. Vox's main discursive strategies entail constructions of migrants and migration based on dichotomous binaries, culture clash, exclusionary discourses of domopolitics, and fears of imminent social and cultural changes. These constructions are based on the unproblematized belief on essential and unchangeable values that forge the identity of the homeland, which is implicitly threatened by immigrants. Against the migratory invasion, Vox constitutes itself as the ethical protector of the Spanish society and nation, “out of care for the insiders and not out of hatred for outsiders.”     

National identification and attitudes towards Russian immigrants in Finland: Investigating the role of perceived threats and gains

In this cross‐sectional study, we examined the relationship between national identification of majority Finns (nation‐wide probability sample, N = 335) and their attitudes towards Russian immigrants living in Finland. As previous research indicates both possibilities, we tested whether this relationship was moderated or mediated by threats and gains perceived to result from immigration. The results supported the mediation hypothesis; those individuals who identified stronger with their national ingroup perceived more threats than gains related to increased immigration and these perceptions, in turn, were associated with more negative attitudes towards immigrants. The role of realistic as opposed to symbolic threats and gains was particularly pronounced. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of their theoretical relevance and practical means to improve intergroup relations, with a particular focus on the relations between Finns and Russian immigrants in Finland.     

National identification and support for discriminatory policies: The mediating role of beliefs about laïcité in France

In France, laïcité is a legal principle enforcing State secularism. However, research indicates that Modern (vs. traditional) beliefs about laïcité (ML) help legitimate prejudice against minorities. From Social Identity Theory, we hypothesized that ML should be positively linked with national identification, stereotyping, prejudice and support for discrimination. Accordingly, we demonstrate that ML independently predicts support for discriminatory policies (Study 1a, N = 241) and Maghrebi IAT scores (Study 1b, N = 242). ML mediates the link between national identification and Generalized Prejudice (Study 2a, N = 215; Study 2d, N = 114) as well as Support for Discriminatory Policies (Study 2b, N = 250). Experimental corroboration of this mediation was provided (Study 2c, N = 100). An exploratory study showed that priming ML led to more support for discrimination through national identification (Study 3, N = 89). These results reveal the important intergroup regulation feature of ML beliefs in France.     

The impact of multiculturalism on immigrant helping

We examined how immigrants' acculturation style (multiculturalism versus assimilation) affects the host society's willingness to help immigrants. The results from this experiment supported our expectations in showing that multiculturalism triggered less immigrant helping than assimilation, but only among high national identifiers. In addition, immigrants pursuing multiculturalism were perceived as less warm than those pursuing assimilation, and perceived warmth mediated the interaction effect of identification and acculturation style on helping. Whereas help could improve immigrants' integration into the host society and reduce the degree to which the latter views immigrants as threatening, these results ironically demonstrate that immigrants who are viewed as most threatening receive the least amount of help.     

National glorification and attachment differentially predict support for intergroup conflict resolution: Scrutinizing cross-country generalizability

Research on national identity distinguishes between national glorification and attachment. We tested whether glorification and attachment differentially predicted support for military and diplomatic conflict resolution strategies (CRS) in response to international conflicts. Using data collected in seven countries (Australia, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel, China; total N = 1784), we investigated whether glorification and attachment can be equivalently measured (using tests of measurement invariance) and whether their relationships with CRS were generalizable across countries. The results revealed metric, but not scalar, measurement invariance of the two-factor structure of national identification across six countries, excluding China. Among these six countries, glorification predicted more support for military CRS, whereas attachment predicted more support for diplomatic CRS. Our study is novel in scrutinizing the cross-cultural generalizability of the bi-dimensional model of national identification. Implications for studying national identification and intergroup conflict cross-culturally are discussed.     

Enacting collective support for the European integration: Participation in pro‐integration action and preference for specific transnational acculturation strategies

We propose that collective support for European integration is mani‐fested in 2 distinct forms: first, as engagement in socio‐political action by citizens who seek to change their nation and its status in Europe. Second, it is manifested as a transnational acculturation process that impacts on both nations and their citizens. These processes potentially engage social identities at 3 levels: national, European and as supporters of the European integration. Here, we examine these different levels of identification as part of a model predicting collective support for the European integration. To capture the dimension of transnationality, we collected data from 2 Romanian samples, 1 of participants living in their country of origin (N = 203), and 1 of participants living as migrants outside Romania (N = 196). We found that identification as a pro‐integration supporter flows from European and Romanian national identifications and is an excellent predictor of collective support for European integration in both its forms. We conclude by discussing how our findings can be applied to the design of intervention strategies and policies to promote support for the European Union and the integration process in the current socio‐political climate (where the unity and the very existence of European Union are under threat).     

Are your cross‐ethnic friends ethnic and/or national group identifiers? The role of own and perceived cross‐ethnic friend's identities on outgroup attitudes and multiculturalism

We investigated how own ethnic and national identities and perceived ethnic and national identities of close cross‐ethnic friends may predict outgroup attitudes and multiculturalism among Turkish (majority status, N = 197) and Kurdish (minority status, N = 80) ethnic group members in Turkey (M_age = 21.12, SD = 2.59, 69.7% females, 30.3% males). Compared with Turkish participants, Kurdish participants were more asymmetrical in rating their cross‐ethnic friend's identities relative to their own, reporting higher ethnic identity, but lower national identity for themselves. Own ethnic identity was negatively associated with attitudes and multiculturalism, whereas own national identity was positively associated with only attitudes. Perceived cross‐ethnic friend's national identity was positively related to both outgroup attitudes and multiculturalism. Shared national identification (high levels of own and friend's national identity) led to most positive outgroup attitudes and highest support for multiculturalism. Findings were discussed in the light of social identity and common ingroup identity models.     

Young immigrants in Norway: The role of national and ethnic identity in immigrants’ integration

The present work investigates the endorsement, antecedents, relationships, and consequences of young immigrants’ social identities in Norway. Despite increasing numbers of refugees and immigrants entering Norway in recent years, little is known about the relationship between immigrants’ different social identities and their feeling of integration into Norwegian society. The main goal of the present research is to fill this gap by investigating whether relationships found in other European countries replicate in the Norwegian context. In line with theoretical considerations and earlier international findings, results from two studies with different immigrant groups (Study 1: high school students; N = 97; Study 2: university students; N = 93) show that the more young immigrants in Norway endorse their national (i.e., Norwegian) identity, the less they endorse their ethnic identity (e.g., Kurdish). We further show that perceived conflict between the two cultures cannot explain the negative relationship between national and ethnic identity. In addition, immigrants’ national identity endorsement is positively related to their dual identity endorsement (e.g., Kurdish-Norwegian). Positive contact with members of the receiving society predicts young immigrants’ feeling of being integrated in Norwegian society and this relationship is mediated by national identity. Results are discussed in terms of the crucial role social identities play in immigrants’ feeling of integration into European societies.     

Opposition to immigration: How people who identify with far-right discourses legitimize the social exclusion of immigrants

This study sought to develop our understanding of how people legitimize opposition to immigration. Thirty-eight interviews were conducted with people who self-identified with far-right anti-immigration discourses, in Italy (N = 23) and Portugal (N = 15). Using reflexive thematic analysis, we developed four related themes. In the first theme, ‘They're guests’: Legitimizing exclusion by differentiating (non-) immigrants, we discuss how despite differentiating between types of immigrants, participants support their social exclusion and always perceive them as guests. In the second theme, ‘White people exist’: Multiple and intersected identity threats, we identify how anti-immigration is legitimized by recurring multiple group threats including ownership, economic, security, cultural, and existential threats. In the third theme, ‘It's like your home’: Justifying exclusionary solidarity based on ownership rights, we illustrate how collective ownership is used to justify practices of exclusionary solidarity. In the fourth theme ‘This is me’: Being born and becoming anti-immigration, we discuss how opposition to immigration was constructed and influenced by contextual conditions as well as international sources of information. The implications of these findings are discussed while considering how participants' experiences and social contexts shape how they perceive immigration and legitimize the social exclusion of immigrants.     

Social Rights and Migrant Realities: Migration Policy Reform and Migrants’ Access to Health Care in Costa Rica,Argentina, and Chile

Immigration poses a significant challenge to states’ existing social protection systems, especially in developing countries that are already struggling to provide social services for their citizens. In particular, immigration produces a tension between citizenship rights—those extended only to citizens, and social rights—rights extended by the state to others within their national territory. Immigration raises questions not only about the rights and access of migrants to health and other social services but also the level and quality of provisions to citizens. We draw on literatures on welfare regimes in Latin America, welfare magnets, and the legitimacy of social rights to examine the nexus of migration and health care policy in Costa Rica, Argentina, and Chile—three countries that have recently pursued immigration reform. We argue that variation in the extension of immigrants’ social rights to health is explained by the interaction of existing migration and social policies, the nature of the health care system in each country, and, in some cases, international and regional norms.     

Human values and ideological beliefs as predictors of attitudes toward immigrants across 20 countries: The country-level moderating role of threat

Immigration is a worldwide subject of interest, and studies about attitudes toward immigrants have been frequent due to immigration crises in different locations across the globe. We aimed at understanding individual-level effects of human values and ideological beliefs (Right-Wing Authoritarianism—RWA, and Social Dominance Orientation—SDO) on attitudes toward immigrants, and whether country-level variables (perception of Islamic fundamentalism as a threat, perception of immigrants as a threat, and international migrant stock) moderate these relations. With representative samples from 20 countries (N = 21,362; the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania), and using Multilevel Bayesian regressions, results showed the negative effect of RWA, SDO, and existence values on attitudes toward immigrants, and the positive effects of suprapersonal and interactive values. Cross-level interactions indicated that the effects of RWA, SDO, and suprapersonal and existence values were intensified in countries with societally high levels of perceiving Islamic fundamentalism as a threat. International migrant stock served as a country-level moderator for the effects of SDO and RWA only. When country-level moderators were included simultaneously, Islamic fundamentalism as a threat was the most consistent moderator. Framing theory is offered as a plausible explanation of these results.     

From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants

This research analyses the mediational role of threat perception in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination (opposition to immigration and opposition to naturalization of immigrants). In the first study, using representative samples in 21 European countries (N = 36 566) from European Social Survey (2002), we showed that the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration was more strongly mediated by realistic than by symbolic threat perceptions. In Study 2, using representative samples in two countries with different traditions of immigration (Switzerland, N = 940; Portugal, N = 1514), we showed that realistic threat more strongly mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration, while only symbolic threat perception mediated the link between prejudice and opposition to naturalization. The theoretical implications of considering threat perceptions as factors that legitimize discrimination are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does Generalized (Dis)Trust Travel? Examining the Impact of Cultural Heritage and Destination‐Country Environment on Trust of Immigrants

At least two contrasting perspectives on the roots of generalized trust exist: The cultural perspective emphasizing how trust is a stable trait passed on from one generation to the next through parental socialization, and the experiential perspective, which stresses that trust is subject to change with what we experience in the environment in which we live. Analyzing trust of immigrants is an effective way to contrast the two perspectives, as the cultural perspective predicts that immigrants' level of trust will continue to reflect the level of trust of their home country, whereas the experiential perspective predicts that trust of immigrants will change according to the environment of the destination country. This article examines how first‐generation immigrants from three low‐trust countries of origin (Turkey, Poland, and Italy) are affected by migrating to high‐trust countries in Northern Europe, which hold qualities conducive to trust. In contrast to earlier studies examining trust of immigrants, I build on one data set containing data on both migrants and nonmigrants from the same country of origin as well as on a wide range of relevant covariates of trust. Using the method of matching, the results of the analysis lend most support to the experiential perspective on trust as the destination‐country context has a massive impact on trust of immigrants, who display significantly higher levels of trust than comparable respondents in their country of origin. The results are robust to limiting the destination‐country context to only one country (Germany) and comparing migrants and nonmigrants responding in the same language.     

Exploring everyday experiences of cultural diversity: The construction,validation, and application of the normative multiculturalism scale

The 3-factor structure of the Normative Multiculturalism Scale (NMS)—Contact with Diversity (CD), Multicultural Ideology (MI), and Multicultural Policies and Practices (MPP)—was tested and confirmed with community samples from New Zealand (N = 381) and the United States (N = 311). Correlations with criterion measures (e.g., perceived minority disadvantage and attitudes to diversity) supported the criterion validity of the subscales. NMS factors were then examined as predictors of social connectedness in a British community sample (N = 347). Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that MI predicted general trust, and MI and MPP predicted national attachment. While MPP was associated with greater perceived threat, this relationship was dampened by the joint influences of MI and CD. The research presents a novel perspective on multiculturalism by adopting a normative approach and examining the main and interaction effects of contact with diversity, multicultural ideology, and multicultural policies on interpersonal and intergroup outcomes.     

Should Cities Control Immigration Policy?

Avner de Shalit wants cities to have their own immigration policies. On a radical reading, this would transfer control over immigrant admissions from states to cities. But can cities choose the immigrants they prefer on economic or cultural grounds, or does this discriminate unfairly against those judged to be less desirable? I argue that de Shalit fails to apply the luck egalitarian principle consistently when discussing immigrant admissions. I also claim that there is a tension between seeing cities as the bearers of distinct cultural ethoses, and therefore as bulwarks against the homogenising effects of globalization, and disbarring them from carrying out culturally selective immigration policies. De Shalit’s own preferred model of the immigrant-friendly city – Amsterdam – appears to lack any distinct ethos, other than an ethos of welcome and cultural blending. Moreover, democratic states also have a legitimate interest in controlling immigration. They must be concerned about the consequences for social justice of admitting migrants and the political effects that follow when the migrants become citizens themselves. They must also consider the environmental impacts of population growth. Cities should play a major role in integrating immigrants, but not in admitting them.