Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:54:05.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population density, cosmopolitanism, and undocumented immigrants in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2022

Ari Adut  and
Harris Hyun-Soo Kim
Ari Adut
Affiliation:
University of Texas, USA [ariadut@austin.utexas.edu]
Harris Hyun-Soo Kim
Affiliation:
Ewha Womans University, South Korea [harrishkim@ewha.ac.kr].
Get access

Abstract

Most research on attitudes towards immigrants and immigration problematically conflates the documented and the undocumented. Previous studies also largely ignore the autonomous role of population density. Based on data drawn from two nationally representative surveys, this paper focuses on contemporary American attitudes towards undocumented immigration and immigrants. Contra the dominant view, we find that education and income have no effect. More important, population density, measured at the county level, significantly predicts favorable attitudes, controlling for factors often erroneously conflated with density: race, income, education, political affiliation, age, gender, and interaction with immigrants. In fact, interaction tends to decrease favorable attitudes. We explain these findings by proposing a novel account of cosmopolitanism, using favorable attitudes towards undocumented immigrants and immigration as an empirical indicator. Those who live in places with higher density are more used to see and be seen in everyday life by countless people with whom they share the same spaces without necessarily interacting with them. As a result, they are more likely to consider all them, including undocumented immigrants, in a superficial yet egalitarian way as generalized others to be ignored. It is this tolerance based on general indifference that is the basis of cosmopolitanism.

Résumé

Résumé

La plupart des recherches sur les attitudes à l’égard des immigrés et de l’immigration confondent de manière problématique les personnes avec et sans papiers. Les études antérieures ignorent aussi largement le rôle autonome de la densité de population. Basé sur des données tirées de deux enquêtes représentatives au niveau national, cet article se concentre sur les attitudes américaines contemporaines envers l’immigration sans papiers et les immigrants. Contrairement à l’opinion dominante, nous constatons que l’éducation et le revenu n’ont aucun effet. Plus important encore, la densité de population, mesurée au niveau du comté, prédit de manière significative les attitudes favorables, en contrôlant les facteurs souvent confondus à tort avec la densité : race, revenu, éducation, affiliation politique, âge, sexe et interaction avec les immigrants. En fait, l’interaction tend à diminuer les attitudes favorables. Nous expliquons ces résultats en proposant une nouvelle explication du cosmopolitisme, en utilisant les attitudes favorables envers les sans-papiers et l’immigration comme indicateur empirique. Ceux qui vivent dans des lieux à plus forte densité sont plus habitués à voir et à être vus au quotidien par d’innombrables personnes avec qui ils partagent les mêmes espaces sans nécessairement interagir avec eux. En conséquence, ils sont plus susceptibles de les considérer tous, y compris les immigrés sans papiers, de manière superficielle mais égalitaire comme des autruis génériques à ignorer. C’est cette tolérance fondée sur l’indifférence générale qui est à la base du cosmopolitisme.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die meisten Forschungsarbeiten, die sich der Haltung gegenüber Einwanderern und Einwanderung widmen, verwechseln auf problematische Weise jene mit und ohne Papiere. Hinzukommt, dass frühere Studien die autonome Rolle der Bevölkerungsdichte weitgehend außer Acht lassen. Der Beitrag nutzt die Daten zweier landesweit repräsentativen Erhebungen, um die zeitgenössische Einstellung der Amerikaner gegenüber papierloser Einwanderung und Einwanderern zu dokumentieren. Entgegen der vorherrschenden Meinung stellen wir fest, dass Bildung und Einkommen keinen Einfluss haben. Entscheidender für eine signifikante Vorhersage einer positiven Einstellung ist die auf Bezirksebene gemessene Bevölkerungsdichte, wobei Faktoren, die oft fälschlicherweise mit der Dichte verwechselt werden, kontrolliert werden: Rasse, Einkommen, Bildung, politische Zugehörigkeit, Alter, Geschlecht und Interaktion mit Einwanderern. Tatsächlich verringert die Interaktion tendenziell positive Einstellungen. Diese Ergebnisse erklären wir, indem wir eine neue Beschreibung des Kosmopolitismus vorschlagen, der auf einer positiven Einstellung gegenüber papierlosen Einwanderern und Einwanderung als empirischem Indikator fusst. Diejenigen, die an Orten mit höherer Bevölkerungsdichte leben, sind es eher gewohnt, im Alltag unzählige Menschen zu sehen und von ihnen gesehen zu werden, mit denen sie dieselben Räume teilen, ohne unbedingt mit ihnen zu interagieren. Infolgedessen ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass sie sich alle, einschließlich der papierlosen Einwanderern, in einer oberflächlichen, aber egalitären Weise als verallgemeinerte Andere betrachten, die es zu ignorieren gilt. Diese auf einer allgemeinen Gleichgültigkeit beruhende Toleranz ist die Grundlage des Kosmopolitismus.

Keywords

Anti-immigrant AttitudesUndocumented ImmigrationPopulation DensityCosmopolitanism.Attitudes anti-immigrésImmigration sans papiersDensité de populationCosmopolitismeAnti-EinwanderungsverhaltensweisenEinwanderungBevölkerungsdichteKosmopolitismus.
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , April 2022 , pp. 87 - 129
Copyright
© European Journal of Sociology, 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author contributions are equal. The authors are grateful to Nancy Foner, Philip Kasinitz, Arthur Sakamoto, Van Tran, and anonymous reviewers for their very helpul comments and suggestions.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Algan, Yann, Guriev, Sergei, Papaioannou, Elias and Passari, Evgenia, 2017. “The European Trust Crisis and the Rise of Populism,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity BPEA Conference Drafts, September 7–8.10.2139/ssrn.3128274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, Gordon, 1954. The Nature of Prejudice (New York, Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
Alba, Richard and Foner, Nancy, 2015. Strangers No More (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Appiah, Anthony, 2007. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Bean, Frank and Bell-Rose, Stephanie, 1995. Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the US (New York, Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich, 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Berg Justin, Allen and Morley, Shannon, 2014. “Intersectionality and the Foreign-Born: Explaining the Variation in the Immigration Attitudes of Immigrants,” Race, Gender & Class, 21 (3/4): 32–47.Google Scholar
Buckler, Kevin, 2018. “Public Opinion on Illegal Immigration - A Test of Seven Core Hypothesis,” Journal of Crime and Justice, 31: 113–147.10.1080/0735648X.2008.9721246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaille, Charlotte and Marshall, John, 2019. “Education and Anti-immigration Attitudes: Evidence from Compulsory School Reforms across Western Europe,” American Political Science Review, 113 (1): 254–263.10.1017/S0003055418000588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Charles R. and Tsai, Yung-mei, 2001. “Social Factors Influencing Immigration Attitudes: An Analysis of Data from the General Social Survey,” The Social Science Journal, 38 (2): 177–188.10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00106-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiricos, Ted, Stupi, Elizabeth K., Stults, Brian J. and Gertz, Marx, 2014. “Undocumented Immigrant Threat and Support for Social Controls,” Social Problems, 61 (4): 673–692.10.1525/sp.2014.13137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceobanu Alin, M. and Escandell, Xavier, 2010. “Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories and Research,” Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 309–328.10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Katherine, 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).10.7208/chicago/9780226349251.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalen Henrik, Van and Henkens, Kene, 2005. “The Rationality behind Immigration Policy,” De Economist, 153 (1): 67–83.10.1007/s10645-004-7130-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Rafaela, 2010. Immigration and Conflict in Europe (New York, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511762734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, Katherine and Massey, Douglas, 2016. “Twenty-First-Century Globalization and Illegal Migration,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 666 (1): 7–26.10.1177/0002716216653563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Emile, [1893] 1984. Division of Labor in Society (New York, Free Press).10.1007/978-1-349-17729-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eatwell, Roger and Goodwin, Matthew, 2016. National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy (New York, Pelican Books).Google Scholar
Ebert, Kim and Okamato, Dina 2015. “Legitimating Contexts, Immigrant Power, and Exclusionary Actions,” Social Problems, 62 (1): 40–67.10.1093/socpro/spu006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, Ryan, 2017. The Space between Us: Social Geography and Politics (New York, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/9781108354943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espenshade Thomas, J. and Hempstead, Katherine, 1996. “Contemporary American Attitudes toward US Immigration,” International Migration Review, 30 (2): 535–537.10.1177/019791839603000207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filindra, Alexandra and Merkowitz, Shanna, 2013. “Together in Good Times and Bad? How Economic Triggers Condition the Effects of Intergroup Threat,” Social Science Quarterly, 94 (5): 1328–1345.10.1111/ssqu.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Robert and Goodwin, Matthew, 2014. “Understanding UKIP: Identity, Social Change and the Left Behind,” The Political Quarterly, 85 (3): 277–284.10.1111/1467-923X.12099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frasure-Yokley, Lorrie and Wilcox-Archuleta, Bryan, 2019. “Geographic Identity and Attitudes toward Undocumented Immigrants,” Political Research Quarterly, 72 (4): 944–959.10.1177/1065912919843349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussell, Elizabeth, 2014. “Warmth of the Welcome: Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy in the US,” Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 479–498.10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangl, Markus, 2010. “Causal Inference in Sociological Research,” Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 21–47.10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbaye, Romain, 2005. Getting into Local Power: The Politics of Ethnic Minorities inBritish and French Cities (London, John Wiley and Sons).10.1002/9780470761625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Andrew and Scholten, Peter, 2016. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe (London, Sage).10.4135/9781473982703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving, 1972. Relations in Public (New York, Penguin).Google Scholar
Golder, Matt, 2016. “Far Right Parties in Europe,” Annual Review of Political Science, 19: 477–497.10.1146/annurev-polisci-042814-012441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilluy, Christophe, 2019. Twilight of the Elites (New Haven, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew and Lee, Barrett, 2010. “How Diverse are US Suburbs?” Urban Studies, 47 (1): 3–28.10.1177/0042098009346862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmuller, Jenns and Hopkins, Daniel, 2014. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants,” American Journal of Political Science, 59 (3): 529–548.10.1111/ajps.12138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haubert, Jeannie and Fussell, Elizabeth, 2006. “Explaining Pro-Immigrant Sentiment in the U.S: Social Class, Cosmopolitanism and Perceptions of Immigrants,” The International Migration Review, 40 (3): 489–507.10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00033.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerden, Sjoerdje van and Ruedin, Didier, 2019. “How Attitudes Towards Immigrants are Shaped by Residential Context: The Role of Ethnic Diversity Dynamics and Immigrant Visibility,” Urban Studies, 56 (2): 317–334.10.1177/0042098017732692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie Russel, 2017. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (New York, The New Press).Google Scholar
Hopkins Daniel, J., 2010. “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition,” American Political Science Review, 104 (1): 40–60.10.1017/S0003055409990360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Jane, 1961. The Life and Death of American Cities (New York, Random House).Google Scholar
Johnson, James H. Jr., Farrell, Walter and Guinn, Chandra, 1997. “Immigration Reform and the Browning of America: Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles,” International Migration Review, 31 (4): 1055–1095.10.1177/019791839703100411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasinitz, Philip and Zukin, Sharon, 2016. “From ‘Ghetto’ to Global, The Neighborhood Shopping Streets in New York City,” In Global Cities, Local Streets: Everyday Diversity from New York to Shanghai (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Eric, 2017. “Levels or Changes?: Ethnic context, Immigration and the UK Independence Party vote,” Electoral Studies, 48: 57–69.10.1016/j.electstud.2017.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Eric and Goodwin, Matthew, 2018. “The Diversity Wave: A Meta-Analysis of the Native-Born White Response to Ethnic Diversity,” Social Science Review, 76: 120–131.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaufmann, Eric and Gareth, Harris, 2015. “White Flight or Positive Contact? Local Diversity and Attitudes to Immigration in Britain,” Comparative Political Studies, 48 (12): 1563–1590.10.1177/0010414015581684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoll Benjamin, R., 2013. “Implicit Nativist Attitudes, Social Desirability, and Immigration Policy Preferences,” International Migration Review, 47 (1): 132–165.10.1111/imre.12016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancee, Bram and Sarrasin, Oriane, 2015. “Educated Preferences or Selection Effects? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Educational Attainment on Attitudes Towards Immigrants,” European Sociological Review, 31 (4): 490–501.10.1093/esr/jcv008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, James and Bentley, Lee, 2018. “Countervailing Contact: Community Ethnic Diversity, Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Mediating Pathways of Positive and Negative Inter-Ethnic Contact in European Societies,” 69: 83–110.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, James, Schmid, Katharina and Hewstone, Miles, 2018. “Ethnic diversity, ethnic threat, and social cohesion: (re)-evaluating the role of perceived out-group threat and prejudice in the relationship between community ethnic diversity and intra-community cohesion,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45 (3): 395–418.10.1080/1369183X.2018.1490638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, James, Schmid, Katharina, R. Rae, James and Hewstone, Miles, 2019. “Prejudice, Contact, and Threat at the Diversity-Segregation Nexus: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of How Ethnic Out-Group Size and Segregation Interrelate for Inter-Group Relations,” Social Forces, 97 (3): 1029–1066.10.1093/sf/soy079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert V., Martinez, Simon, Brase, Gary and Sorenson, Kerry, 1994. “Helping in 36 U.S. Cities,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 189–198.Google Scholar
Lichter, Daniel and Zilliak, James, 2017. “The Rural-Urban Interface: The New Patterns of Spatial Interdependence and Inequality in America,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 (1): 6–25.10.1177/0002716217714180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manevska, Katerina and Achterberg, Peter, 2013. “Immigration and Perceived Ethnic Threat: Cultural Capital and Economic Explanations,” European Sociological Review, 29 (3): 437–449.10.1093/esr/jcr085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Douglas S., 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States,” Population and Development Review, 21 (3): 631–652.10.2307/2137753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna, 2006. “Who Is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of Individual Attitudes toward Immigrants,” The Review of Economics Statistics, 88 (3): 510–530.10.1162/rest.88.3.510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Rahsaan, 2019. “Cosmopolitan Immigration Attitudes in Large European Cities,” American Political Science Review, 113 (2): 456–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren Lauren, M., 2003. “Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Europe: Contact, Threat Perception, and Preferences for the Exclusion of Migrants,” Social Forces, 81 (3): 909–936.10.1353/sof.2003.0038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas, 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511492037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mughan, Anthony and Paxton, Pamela, 2006. “Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Policy Preferences and Populist Party Voting in Australia,” British Journal of Political Science, 36 (2): 341–358.10.1017/S0007123406000184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Benjamin J., 2013. “Accuulating Contexts and Anglo Opposition to Immigration in the United States,” American Journal of Political Science, 57 (2): 374–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald, 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/9781108595841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noury, Abdul and Roland, Gerald, 2020. “Identity Politics and Populism,” Annual Review of Political Science, 23: 421–439.10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha, 1994. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” Boston Review, October 1.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric and Rahn, Wendy M., 2016. “Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667 (1): 189–206.10.1177/0002716216662639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas and Tropp, Linda, 2008. “How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Meta-analytic Tests of Three Mediators,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 922–934.10.1002/ejsp.504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecoraro, Marco and Ruedin, Dider, 2016. “A Foreigner who does not Steal My Job: The Role of Unemployment Risk and Values in Attitudes toward Equal Opportunities,” International Migration Review, 50 (3): 628–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas and Tropp, Linda R., 2006. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5): 751–83.10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pew Research Center, 2018. Shifting Public Views on Legal Immigration to the US. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/).Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert, 2001. Bowling Alone (New York, Simon and Schuster).Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert, 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies, 30: 137–174.10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quillian, Lincoln, 1995. “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe,” American Sociological Review, 60 (4): 586–611.10.2307/2096296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, Stephen and Bryk, Anthony, 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.)Google Scholar
Raudenbush, Stephen, Bryk, Anthony, Cheong, Yuk Fai, Congdon, Richard and Toit, Mathilda du, 2011. HLM 8: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling (Lincolnwood, IL, Scientific Software International).Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Gregory, 1999. From Newcomers to New Americans: The Successful Integration of Immigrants into American Society (Washington DC: National Immigration Forum).Google Scholar
Sanchez, George J., 1999. “Race and Immigration History,” American Behavioral Scientist, 9: 1271–1275.10.1177/00027649921955047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schain, Martin A., 2018. Shifting Ideas: Radical-right Populism and Immigration Policy in Europe and the United States (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute).Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth and Slaughter, Matthew, 2001. “Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences Over Immigration Policy,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (1): 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennett, Richard, 1977. The Fall of Public Man (New York, Knopf).Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg, 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (New York, Free Press).Google Scholar
Stoll, Dietlind, Petermann, Sören, Schmid, Katharina, Schönwälder, Karen, Hewstone, Miles, Vertovec, Steven, Schmitt, Thomas and Heywood, Joe, 2013. “Immigration-related Diversity and Trust in German Cities: The Role of Intergroup Contact,” Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 23 (3): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de, [1835] 2001. Democracy in America (London, Penguin).Google Scholar
Wessendorf, Susanne, 2014. Commonplace Diversity (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Will, 2019. “The Density Divide: Urbanization, Polarization, and Populist Backlash”, Research Paper, Niskanen Center.Google Scholar
Wirth, Louis, 1938. Urbanism as a Way of Life, American Journal of Sociology, 44 (1): 1–24.10.1086/217913CrossRefGoogle Scholar