Immigration

Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second‐generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post‐1965 American immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(2): 173-193. (21 pages)

'Second‐generation decline' questions the current American faith in the myth of nearly automatic immigrant success. In discussing economic scenarios, positive and negative, for the future of the children of the post‐1965 immigrants, the possibility is proposed that a significant number of the children of poor immigrants, especially dark‐skinned ones, might not obtain jobs in the mainstream economy. Neither will they be willing ‐ or even able ‐ to take low‐wage, long‐hour 'immigrant' jobs, as their parents did. As a result, they (and young males among them particularly) may join blacks and Hispanics among those already excluded, apparently permanently, from the mainstream economy. The article also deals with the relations between ethnicity and economic conditions in the USA and with the continued relevance of the assimilation and acculturation processes described by 'straight‐line theory'. This issue, as well as most others discussed, may also be salient for European countries experiencing immigration, especially those countries with troubled economies. ASSIMILATION

Bloemraad, Irene. 2006. "Becoming a Citizen in the United States and Canada: Structured Mobilization and Immigrant Political Incorporation." Social Forces 85(2): 667-695. (29 pages)

Bloemraad (2006) develops a new theoretical approach to studying immigrant citizenship and political incorporation by studying a citizenship puzzle: while most immigrants in Canada historically and contemporaneously held citizenship, the case is not the same in the United States, where levels of citizenship among immigrants has declined precipitously. She examines three existing models of citizenship: 1) an approach that considers citizenship adoption as the product of cost/benefit calculations; 2) an approach that understands individuals and groups to be differently endowed with the skills, resources, and interests necessary to acquire citizenship; and 3) an approach that believes countries adopt citizenships regimes to either include or exclude immigrants. While each provides some understanding of the citizenship differences between the U.S. and Canada, they all fail to bridge the micro-macro divide in citizenship accounts. To address this issue, Bloemraad (2006) draws on research concerning both social movements and neo-institutionalism to develop a model of "structured mobilization." The author argues that immigrant citizenship and political incorporation is actually a process that is akin to social movement mobilization, involving friends, family, co-ethnic organizations, and local community leads. For immigrants who encounter language barriers, are unfamiliar with mainstream institutions, and have weak ties with native-born citizens, their fellow immigrants and local organizations shape how they think about citizenship. However, this localized mobilization is situated in and affected by a larger institutional structure, as the ability of immigrants and local organizations to promote citizenship is influenced by government policies concerning immigrant integration and diversity. In particular, government policies provide instrumental, material, and symbolic assistance to immigrant communities, shaping immigrants' understanding of citizenship. For example, whether the government provides English language classes a) directly influences whether a newcomer can pass the language requirement for citizenship and b) signals whether immigrants are important to the receiving society, thus creating the foundation for political membership. Bloemraad (2006) explores these topics through a study on Portuguese immigrants and Vietnamese refugees in Boston and Toronto, Canada. She identifies three key sets of government policies that differ between the two contexts: 1) the bureaucracies overseeing citizenship (Canada has a standalone federal department that promotes citizenship and integration, while the embedding of USCIS in Homeland Security promotes an ethos of law enforcement); 2) newcomer settlement (Canada views settlement and incorporation as public issue, while US sees immigrant settlement as private concern); and 3) different policies on ethno-racial diversity. These three shape immigrants' political incorporation. Within this context, the author argues that communities that receive more government support (immigrants in Canada compared to US, and refugees in the US compared to other immigrants) build larger organizational infrastructures and have more diverse sets of community organizations, which in turn provide instrumental help with citizenship and political incorporation. CITIZENSHIP

Bail, Christopher A. 2008. "The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe." American Sociological Review 73(1): 37-59. (23 pages)

Bail (2008) conducts a novel analysis of multiple symbolic boundaries toward immigrants in 21 European countries, arguing that "treating immigrants as a single out-group neglects important cross-national variation in the conceptual distinctions used by natives to create notions of "us" and "them"" (56). He develops a framework for the study of boundary-work at the macro-level, where boundary-work requires attention to the relative salience or "configuration" of multiple symbolic boundaries (e.g., race, religion, language, culture, or human capital), adding much-needed precision to the concept and enabling the analysis of whether the configuration of symbolic boundaries reveals the interests of groups in competition for social resources. He then provides a brief overview of immigration to Europe between 1945 (i.e., post-WWII) and 2003, arguing that the comparative study of immigration in Europe is uniquely suited for the study of boundary-work because of four major axes of differentiation: 1) sources and timing of migration; the size and origin of immigrant groups and their position in the labor market; 3) citizenship and civic inclusion policies; and 4) philosophies of integration. Next, using "fuzzy-set" techniques to analyze questions about a hypothetical immigrant in the 2003 European Social Survey, Bail (2008) develops a typology of symbolic boundaries consisting of three sets. Set A is characterized by: (1) stronger racial and religious symbolic boundaries, (2) weaker cultural and linguistic symbolic boundaries, (3) slightly weaker educational symbolic boundaries, and (4) slightly stronger occupational symbolic boundaries. The countries most closely affiliated with Set A (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, Ireland, Greece, and Hungary) are all new immigration countries located on the periphery of the European Union. Set B is characterized by: (1) stronger linguistic and cultural symbolic boundaries, (2) weaker religious and racial symbolic boundaries, (3) slightly stronger educational symbolic boundaries, and (4) slightly weaker occupational symbolic boundaries. This consists of countries like Britain, France, Austria, Germany, and Belgium, which are all old immigration countries in the core of Western Europe. Finally, Set C is characterized by: (1) weaker scores on every symbolic boundary, (2) extremely weak racial symbolic boundaries, (3) extremely weak education and occupation symbolic boundaries, and (4) weaker religious symbolic boundaries (but slightly stronger than those in Set B). Countries closely affiliated with Set C are mostly in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland), and are considered "accommodating isolationist." Bail provides hypotheses around the relationship between each of these sets' structural characteristics and their corresponding symbolic boundaries. Results suggest that official philosophies of integration (e.g., "multicultural race relations in Britain or républicanisme in France) do not correspond to the configuration of symbolic boundaries deployed by the general public. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Bean, Frank D., Mark A. Leach, Susan K. Brown, James D. Bachmeier and John R. Hipp. 2011. "The Educational Legacy of Unauthorized Migration: Comparisons Across U.S.-Immigrant Groups in How Parents' Status Affects Their Offspring." International Migration Review 45(2): 348-385. (38 pages)

Bean et al. compare the educational attainment of the 1.5 and second generation children of Mexican and Asian immigrants in Los Angeles using data from the IMMLA survey. The authors draw on the delayed incorporation perspective to posit that parents entry, legalization, and naturalization status is related to their children's educational attainment: this perspective argues that "when immigrant groups contain substantial numbers of persons whose entry statuses are unauthorized and who often expect their stays in the destination country to be temporary, as is the case among many Mexicans (Van Hook and Bean, 2009), incorporation processes take considerably longer than for less marginal groups". The authors hypothesize that parents' transitional membership statuses have an independent effect on educational attainment among the children of immigrants: they also seek to document how the combination of these statuses (unauthorized, legal permanent residents, naturalized) differs for different immigrant origin groups, as well as how the combination of these statuses by different parents in households matters for educational attainment. The authors use latent class models on a sample of 20-40 year old immigrants from Mexico, China, Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam to sort "respondents into classes based on similarities among their parents' steps in making transitions from entry to citizenship". The results suggest that individuals from all four Asian origin countries have homogenous forms of political-entry incorporation: these respondents fall into two groups, the quick naturalizers and the slow naturalizers (with similar naturalization patterns for both patterns). Mexican-origin respondents, in contrast, exhibit remarkable heterogeneity in parental status combinations. The authors then use nested multinomial logistic regressions to estimate how different parental status combinations are associated with educational attainment, net of parental characteristics. The authors hypothesize three patterns of status entry: one where the move from each status to the next is linearly associated with educational attainment (unauthorized→ LPR → naturalized), one where legalization matters most, and one where naturalization matters most. Using an instrument for mothers getting permanent residency under the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) to correct for selectivity, the authors find that mothers achieving legal status is associated with higher educational attainment. The authors conclude that while classical assimilation theories hold for Asian-origin immigrants, the heterogeneity in parental status at arrival and parental status transitions for Mexican origin immigrants and the association between these status transitions and children's educational attainment among Mexican origin immigrants lends support to the delayed incorporation perspective. [Note from Nino: the authors seemingly distinguish between "delayed" and "blocked" incorporation, where blocked incorporation entails setbacks due to ethnoracial discrimination. But could the states' refusal in granting amnesty to undocumented workers be attributed, at least in part, to ethnoracial discrimination? LEGAL STATUS

Bloemraad, Irene. 2013. "Being American/Becoming American: Birthright Citizenship and Immigrants Membership in the United States." Pp. 55-84 in Special Issue: Who Belongs? Immigration, Citizenship, and the Constitution of Legality, edited by Austin Sarat. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. (30 pages)

Bloemraad argues that, though birthright citizenship is an exclusionary criterion, it provides an important basis for inclusion and equality for the descendants of immigrants in the United States. Drawing on interview data from second-generation US citizens, immigrant parents, and naturalized citizens, Bloemraad argues that birthright citizenship offers "an egalitarian promise" as "a color-blind and class-blind path to membership". Bloemraad shows how political entrepreneurs and representatives draw on liberal notions of consent to advocate for restricting birthright citizenship in favor of naturalization (on the principle of naturalization as affirmative choice and consent of the state). However, Bloemraad argues that the principle of the fourteenth amendment was to ensure equal citizenship status: thus, examining how foreng-born residents and their US-born descendants interpret citizenship law and its relationship to inclusion and belonging is central to legal debates around citizenship. Bloemraad states that "consent is only one value inherent in the conception of U.S. citizenship. Equality and inclusion are other key aspirations. Birthright citizenship, by providing automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of immigrants, helps fulfill an anti-subordination principle". In the face of lingering exclusion on the basis of material well-being and racial minority status, birthright citizenship "offers an egalitarian promise". [Note by Nino: one of the highlights of this paper is Bloemraad's point that those who would deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants do not seek to end ascriptive citizenship entirely- i.e., they do not attempt to withhold citizenship from US born children of native-born US whites. She also points out that citizenship on the basis of descent is even more ascriptive than citizenship on the basis of territoriality, something that approaches that stress consent do not consider]. CITIZENSHIP

Levitt, Peggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pp. 54-72; 180-198. (38 pages)

Chapter 2: Social Remittances: How Global Culture is Created Locally In the context of international immigration and migration patterns, Levitt argues that migrants who leave their home country and spend time in a host country send back social remittances, or "ideas, behaviors, identities and social capital" back to their home country compatriots. She describes the nature of social remittances and the mechanism by which they are transmitted from host countries to sending countries. **She identifies three types of migrant profiles which affect the degree to which they engage the social and cultural resources of the host country: 1) recipient observers, migrants who interact minimally with the host country and mostly stay within the lines of their ethnic community 2) mental adapters, those who are more integrated into host country life and interact in order to live daily life and 3) purposeful innovators, migrants who aggressively enter host-country life and seek to learn new customs and expand their horizons. Some migrants abandon their traditional practices, do not change their behavior, add new tools to their existing way of life, or blend customs of their host country with their sending-country traditions/customs. **Via social remittances, migrants exchange normative structures (ideas, values and beliefs), systems of practice (ways of life which enact those normative structures) and social capital to nonmigrants in their home country. **Social remittances travel through identifiable and intentional pathways, between people who are familiar with each other or share mutual ties. Factors which determine the impact of social remittances include the nature of the remittance itself, the nature of the transnational network between migrants/non-migrants, the characteristics of both the messenger and the target audience, the degree of similarity/difference between the host and home countries, the level of development of organizations in host/home countries, and whether a remittance is sent along a single or multiple pathways. Chapter 7: Transnationalizing Community Development In this chapter, Levitt describes community development organizations aiming to improve the lives of home country nonmigrants that include both nonmigrants in home countries and migrants living in host countries. In her study of the Mirafloreno Dominican migrants in Boston and their counterparts in the DR, she provides a case study of the Mirafloreno Development Corporation (MDC) which has chapters in both locations. The advantages presented by the transnational organization include providing the skills and resources of migrants to non-migrants, solidifying Mirafloreno solidarity and community in Boston, formalizing the growth of the organizational structure in Boston, and creating jobs for nonmigrants working on projects in the DR. However, some disadvantages include absolving the Dominican government of its responsibilities to provide services to the Miraflores village as well as allowing migrants, who had more resources, to exercise greater control over the outcomes of the nonmigrants and their home country community. WHY PEOPLE MOVE

Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, Mary C. Waters and Jennifer Holdaway. 2008. Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ch. 1, 5, 10, and 11. Pp. 1-24, 133-173, 300-370. (136 pages)

Contesting the prevalence of second-generation decline, Kasinitz et al. (2009) find that, overall, the second generation immigrants fared better than their native comparison groups, particularly with respect to educational attainment and labor force status. Moreover, the children of immigrants that demonstrated the greatest advancement were those that became incorporated into the mainstream society rather than remaining in ethnic enclaves or immigrant communities. The authors argue that culture, while highly dependent on social structure, played an important role in determining norms around family formation and the lifecycle, which in turn affected measures of economic success. In addition to culture, the second generation demonstrates the complexity of ethnic identity which may be variable, situational, or a hybrid of the two. The intersection of ethnic identity and race has important implications for discrimination and mobility. In particular, perceived race matters. ASSIMILATION

Feliciano, Cynthia. 2005. "Does Selective Migration Matter? Explaining Ethnic Disparities in Educational Attainment Among Immigrants' Children." International Migration Review 39(4): 841-871. (31 pages)

Feliciano directly engages with Borjas' claim that immigrants in recent years are of declining "quality." She shows that, in fact, immigrants of all 32 groups she studies other than Puerto Ricans are positively selected compared to those in their home countries. She then goes on to examine how relative selectivity may be related to questions of second-generation achievement and cultural explanations, such as Asians being a "model minority." She demonstrates that selectivity accounts for a large amount of this variation. In fact, educational selectivity appears to be a much more accurate predictor of second-generation college attendance than absolute SES measures. In other words, what may look like rapid attainment from the 1st to 2nd generation may be a result of the 1st generations relatively high education compared to their home country. This has significant implications for how education is passed down across generations, as well as methodological implications for examining assimilation in the future. Method: Part of the contribution of this paper is the method of combining several sources of data to quantitatively analyze selectivity, rather than discussing it in abstract terms. Feliciano uses data on the average educational attainment of the top sending countries to the US, Census data on first generation immigrants, and CPS data on second-generation immigrants. She uses OLS regression to analyze population-level data on college attendance rates and a logit model to estimate an individual's likelihood of attending college. ASSIMILATION

Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 44-93; 285-325. (91 pages)

Focus on West Indian immigrants. Believes that racial and ethnic identities are not zero sum and many can be held at any given point in time. West Indian immigrants categorized differently by race depending on country context. In America, Blackness is intractable; framework through which others perceive them. For immigrant groups, ethnic identity situational. E.g., use of West Indian. When around primarily island people use nation. Otherwise use West Indian. Similarly, Americans tend to know West Indian individuals are immigrants once they hear the Caribbean accent. West Indian second and 1.5 generation immigrants have three options for identity development: 1) identify as American, 2) identify as American with distance from Black Americans, 3) Identify as immigrant without relation to American racial and ethnic categories. Ethnically identified (option 3) most likely to come from middle class backgrounds ASSIMILATION

Fitzgerald, David, and David Cook Martin. 2014. Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 3. Pp. 82-140. (59 pages)

FitzGerald and Cook Martin (2014) argue that the United States developed explicitly racist policies of nationality and immigration. They note that the struggle between capital and labor, ideologies of liberalism and racism, and the democratic structure of government promoted the onset of ethnic selection. Their analysis covers three dimensions: temporal (how policies have changed over time); vertical (class relations and who has power); and horizontal (political field of organizations and networks of states, quasi-official, and non-state actors). In contrast to Joppke's (1999) position that liberalism and domestic society pressures led to demise of settler state's ethno-racial immigration policies, the authors argue that foreign policy and norms from the horizontal plane primarily drove this shift, while lobbying from ethnic and other interest groups on the vertical plane played a more secondary role. The authors provide an overview of various policies and laws in U.S history that granted or denied entry or naturalization based on race, including determinations by the courts of who is and is not white (e.g., Mexicans were legally white, whereas people from Burma, China, Hawaii, and Japan were each ruled nonwhite); discrimination against black immigrants; and the restriction of Chinese and Japanese immigration to the U.S. (the restrictions against the Japanese were less harsh than against the Chinese because Japan was a stronger power than China). The authors note that in contrast to the controls established on black and Asian immigration, the U.S. did not initially select Europeans by ethnicity, even though many groups were only seen as liminally white. Eventually, once the Republic was firmly established, lawmakers placed various restrictions on certain Europeans (e.g., literacy tests, annual quotes for each national-origin). The quote system mostly filtered Europeans, but also banned most Asian immigration. Notably, Mexicans and Filipinos were both exempt because of foreign policy considerations. There are three broad explanations for the demise of the national-origins quota system in 1965: 1) the 1965 reform was in response to the Civil Rights movement; 2) lobbying by ethnic organizations in the U.S. represented groups whose numbers were limited by quotas; and 3) U.S. foreign policy affected domestic immigration policy. The authors argue in favor of the third explanation, noting that the first two explanations were only secondary factors. The 1990 diversity visa program (and its antecedents) was the last major effort to change the ethnic composition of U.S. immigration flows. Even though ethnic discrimination is no longer the law on the books, immigration policies continue to affect ethnic groups differently because socioeconomic characteristics are unevenly distributed among potential migrants. The authors note that while country caps are nondiscriminatory at the country level, they are in fact discriminatory at the individual level, discriminating against individuals from countries with a high demand for emigration. While there have been dramatic decreases in policies of ethnic selection (e.g., racial bans and quotas), ethnicity still matters, as immigration enforcement disproportionately targets Latinos, Muslims, and Arabs. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Freeman, Gary. 1995. "Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States." International Migration Review 29(4): 881-902. (21 pages)

Freeman (1995) analyzes the various modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states. In liberal democracies, there are barriers to acquiring information about immigration (e.g., scarcity and ambiguity of data) and the process by which issues are debated distorts the available information. Those who directly benefit from immigration (e.g., employers who depend on unskilled workforce, family and ethnic relations) are better positioned to organize in favor of immigration than those who bear its diffuse costs (e.g., those who compete with immigrants for jobs, housing, government services). State actors who make policy will respond to the organized pressures of pro-immigration groups to maximize votes. Therefore, immigration politics in liberal democracies exhibits an expansionary bias: popular opinion is more restrictionist but poorly articulated, while organized opinion is more favorable and has a greater impact on policy, since politicians seeking to maximize votes cater to the powerful and organized interests. In this sense, immigration policy is "client politics" (i.e., "a form of bilateral influence in which small and well-organized groups intensely interested in a policy develop close working relationships with officials responsible for it"). Furthermore, he describes an "anti-populist norm" whereby political elites are unable to address the racial/ethnic composition of migrant streams or to exploit those racial/ethnic fears to win votes. Despite this common model accounting for broad patterns, Freeman (1995) highlights how the immigration politics of liberal democratic states fit into three distinct modes, based on their immigration histories (i.e., the timing and circumstances of their first immigration experiences) and the degree to which immigration politics is institutionalized. First, in English-speaking settler societies (US, Canada, Australia), there have been periods of relatively open immigration, substantial immigration planning and regulation, and a densely organized web of interest groups. They have an institutionalized set of immigration policies that favor expansionary policies and are relatively immune to dramatic changes. Second, many of the European states (France, Britain, Germany, Sweden, etc.) first experienced mass migration after WWII, introducing a significant non-European minority population. These episodes shaped their immigration politics, which are highly volatile and ridden with conflict. Finally, the European states who until recently were sending countries (Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal) are dealing with migration pressures for the first time under crisis conditions, while also trying to harmonize their policies with the European Union. The author hypothesizes that immigration politics in both sets of European states will likely become more expansive and inclusive, though they are unlikely to reach the same level of openness as the English-speaking democracies. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Levitt, Peggy 1998 "Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-Level Forms of Cultural Diffusion" International Migration Review 32(4): 926-948. (23 pages)

Levitt coins the term "social remittances", defined as the "ideas, behaviors, identities, and social capital that flow from receiving-to sending-country communities": these remittances are the "social and cultural resources that migrants bring with them which ease their transitions from immigrants to ethnics". These resources are essential to the formation of transnational collectives. Levitt argues that these transnational public spheres emerge when connections between sending and receiving destinations become widespread: individuals in both locations experience a sense of belonging to "a group that spanned to settings". Drawing on fieldwork in Jamaica Plain, Boston and Miraflores, Dominican Republic, Levitt identifies how migrants participate in their receiving countries as "recipient observers", instrumental adapters seeking to adjust, and "purposeful innovators" seeking to get ahead. These modes of engagement added new tools to their cultural repertoires or challenged pre-existing social and cultural tools. When migrants travel back to their sending countries, non-migrants observe these cultural changes (such as changes in clothing). Levitt identifies three types of social remittances: normative structures (ideas, values, and beliefs, e.g. "notions of gender identity"), systems of practice (e.g. political participation, religious engagement, organizational behaviors like recruitment, strategy, leadership style), and social capital (e.g. using transnational ties, or connections in the receiving country, for access to resources in the sending country). These types of remittances are transmitted through networks when migrants return to their communities permanently or through visits, and through long-distance communication and transnational political engagement. These remittances are transmitted through direct network ties (as opposed to general "global culture dissemination") and are often indirect/unintentional. WHY PEOPLE MOVE

Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J. Edward Taylor. 1993. "Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal." Population and Development Review 19(3): 431-466. (36 pages)

Massey and coauthors review four theories explaining how international migration is initiated, and outline a theory of how international migration is sustained. In the neoclassical approach, international migration is driven by wage disparities between the migrant's home and destination countries: the macro approach states that migration is driven by differences in wage rates and flows of human capital, while the micro approach argues that potential migrants engage in a cost-benefit calculation prior to migrating, and if the calculated net return to migration is positive, the rational actor migrates (Borjas 1990). Some implications of the neoclassical theory are that migration does not occur in the absence of wage disparities and employment rates across countries, and that countries regulate migration through policies that affect wage rates in sending or receiving countries. In the new economics approach (Stark & collaborators), migration decisions are taken by households seeking to mitigate risks to household income: because futures markets, private insurance, capital markets, and unemployment insurance are lacking, households minimize risk by engaging in economic activity locally and internationally (through the migration of individual members). The new economics approach also states that it is households' relative income, not their absolute income that matters for migration decisions: if household's absolute income remains the same, but income in their communities rise, then the incentives for migration increase. The implications of the new economics theory are that incentives for migration exist even in the absence of wage differentials between sending and receiving countries, that countries can shape incentives of migration through futures markets, capital markets, insurance, and the income distribution in local communities. Both the neoclassical approach and the new economics approach are individual decision-making models, where persons or households migrate to maximize their utility. In contrast, the dual labor market approach and the world systems approach emphasize broader structural forces that shape migration patterns. The dual labor market approach (Piore) stresses that migration is caused by labor demand in destination countries (emphasizing pull factors): the inherent duality between labor and capital in industrial economies entails that jobs in the labor-intensive secondary sector are unstable and require unskilled labor, jobs that the native-born are reluctant to fill (so firms turn to immigrants as their labor supply). The world systems approach, on the other hand, emphasizes how the penetration of capitalism in developing countries shapes incentives for migration from rural to urban and international destinations. Massey et al. then outline the cumulative causation theory: this theory argues that first-time migrants alters the decision-making context for subsequent migrants: because of network ties between first-time migrants and potential migrants in their home countries, the costs and risks associated with migration decline for subsequent migrants, and private institutions and voluntary organizations emerge to assist and promote international migration. In Massey's words, "causation is cumulative in that each act of migration alters the social context within which subsequent migration decisions are made, typically in ways that make additional movement more likely". The authors end by discussing ways to evaluate these different theories empirically (a task taken up by Garip (2012) in this reading list). WHY PEOPLE MOVE

Joppke, Christian. 1998. "Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration." World Politics 50(2): 266-293. (28 pages)

Jopke (1998) analyzes the gap between restrictionist immigration control rhetoric and expansionist immigration reality in Western states, asking why liberal democracies accept unwanted immigration (i.e., more immigrants than their restrictionist rhetoric and policies intend). The author argues that this unwanted immigration is not actively solicited by states, but rather is accepted passively for humanitarian reasons, as with refugees; in recognition of individual rights, such as in the case of asylum-seeking or family reunification; or because of states' inability to keep migrants out, as in illegal immigration. He argues against the notion that the acceptance of unwanted immigration indicates a decline in sovereignty vis-à-vis their control over the admission and expulsion of immigrants. There is little evidence of a decline in sovereignty with regard to either states' formal rule-making authority or their capacity to implement those rules. Furthermore, while some authors have suggested that global constraints, such as economic globalization and the rise of an international human rights regime, force states to accept unwanted immigration, this too falls short of explaining unwanted immigration. As an alternative explanation, Joppke proposes that states' capacity to control immigration has not actually diminished, but in fact has increased. However, for domestic reasons, liberal states are unable to put this capacity to use. Therefore, self-limited (rather than globally limited) sovereignty (i.e., internal rather than external constraints) explains unwanted immigration. To support his argument, Joppke (1998) draws on and modifies Freeman's (1995) modes of immigration politics. While he agrees that the client politics and anti-populist norms that Freeman identifies are important, he argues that Freeman ignores the legal process in shaping expansive immigration politics. Second, while Freeman (1995) treats Western European states as a single unit, Joppke (1998) argues that there are important variations to unwanted immigration within Western Europe, particularly between guest-worker and post-colonial regimes. He uses the examples of the United States' inability to control illegal immigration and family immigration in Europe to support his argument. In Europe, legal constraints and moral obligations toward certain immigrant groups, rather than the logic of client politics, accounts for the continuing family immigration despite zero-immigration policies. But, these legal and moral constraints are unevenly distributed across states: Germany's strong constitution that celebrates human rights and its moral burden of a negative history have led to extreme self-limited sovereignty and thus expansive immigration politics. In contrast, Britain has contained unwanted immigration more effectively than other states, but at the expense of violating family rights. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Marrow, Helen B. 2009. "New Immigrant Destinations and the American Colour Line." Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(6): 1037-1047. (11 pages)

Marrow examines patterns of racial and ethnic identification and social interactions with whites and blacks among newcomer Latin American immigrants in "new destinations". Marrow draws on semi-structured interviews with Latin American immigrants and whites and blacks in two small, rural counties in North Carolina with little Hispanic population prior to 1980 and a sizeable but heavily segregated black population. The evidence suggests that these recent arrivals identify as Hispanic, though those with lighter skin sometimes self-identify as white or identify ethnically as Hispanic but racially white, consistent with the tri-racial stratification model. However, Marrow also argues that respondents' identification exhibits greater distance from blacks than from whites, supporting the theory of an emerging black-nonblack divide and refuting the tri-racial stratification theory's concept of "collective blacks". Marrow shows that recent arrivals hold stereotypes about blacks and distance themselves from blackness, as whiteness is valued and blackness devalued both in their home countries and in the US. She also shows that Hispanic newcomers report negative treatment from blacks and lower-SES whites, while reporting positive treatment from whites. This finding lends further support to the idea that Hispanics do not feel they are treated as "collective blacks". ASSIMILATION

Massey, Douglas, Jorge Durand, and Karen A. Pren. 2016. "Why Border Enforcement Backfired." American Journal of Sociology 121(5):1557-1600. (44 pages)

Massey, Durand, and Pren (2016) argue that not only did increased enforcement and militarization of the border not accomplish its stated objective of control, but instead backfired. Theoretically, they argue that employing a strategy of enhanced border enforcement emerged when self-interested politicians, bureaucrats, and pundits framed undocumented immigration as a "crisis" while ignoring its underlying realities. This led to a "moral panic" about the perceived threat of Latino immigration to the U.S. Increased border enforcement (logically) led to increased apprehension, which prompted a militarization of the border in a way that was disconnected from the actual flow of migrants. In other words, border enforcement was not grounded in any realistic appraisal of undocumented immigration or from a careful assessment of the social and economic forces driving it, but rather in the social construction of a border crisis for the purposes of resource acquisition and political mobilization. Empirically, the authors find that the rate of undocumented population growth in the U.S. is actually higher because of border enforcement. Furthermore, using an instrumental variable (IV) approach, they show that border enforcement affected the migration behaviors of unauthorized immigrants. It pushed migrants away from benign crossing locations (e.g. El Paso, TX and San Diego, CA) toward more dangerous locations in the desert, which increased the need to rely on smugglers and therefore increased the costs and risks of undocumented migration. At the same time, however, increased border enforcement only modestly increased the probability of apprehension. Increasingly costly and risky trips, combined with a near certainty of getting into the U.S. without being apprehended, substantially reduced the probability of returning back to Mexico after their first trip. Therefore, the authors argue that border enforcement transformed undocumented immigration from Mexico from a circular flow primarily going to a settled population of families living in all 50 states. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Perlman, Joel, and Roger Waldinger. 1999. "Immigrants Past and Present: A Reconsideration." Pp. 223-238 in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz and Josh DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (16 pages)

Perlman and Waldinger analyze how they expect the trajectory of second-generation immigrants post-1965 to compare to the last major wave from 1890-1920. They note that there has been pessimism primarily for two reasons: 1, modern immigrants are more likely to face racial discrimination, and 2, the modern hourglass economy makes it more difficult for immigrants at the bottom rungs of the economy to advance. However, Perlman and Waldinger argue that today's immigrants are actually much more diverse socioeconomically than immigrants of the past. They find that Mexican immigration accounts for a large share of low-SES immigrants, and that non-Mexican immigrants actually have higher rates of college attendance than native-born Americans. Therefore, they argue that Mexican immigrants are uniquely at risk in the hourglass economy, but immigrants at large are not. They also argue that Portes and Zhou's classification of earlier immigrants as uniformly white misses the complex reality of shifting racial boundaries. While these immigrants may not have been classified as black, they were a distinct racial other from white. Perlman and Waldinger point out that the softening of these ethnic boundaries and the upward mobility of these immigrants was one joint process, rather than one causing the other. As a result, they believe it's possible for modern immigrants to undergo a similar process, especially as they see evidence of them distancing themselves from blackness. For these reasons, they believe the story of segmented assimilation and downward mobility to be overly pessimistic, with the possible exception of the case of Mexicans. ASSIMILATION

Telles, Edward M., Vilma Ortiz, and Joan W. Moore. 2008. Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation and Race. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pp. 1-73, 104-157, 211-238, 264-292. (184 pages)

Telles and Ortiz situate their work in the ongoing debate surrounding Portes and Rumbaut's pessimistic view of assimilation for Mexican immigrants versus Alba and Nee's more cautiously optimistic one. Telles and Ortiz tend to agree that a simple assimilation or racialization approach does not capture the nuance and diversity of experience for Mexican-Americans. They believe that their unique access to this longitudinal data will provide the baseline to develop a theoretical approach from empirical analysis, rather than what they see as a tendency to fit Mexicans into whatever preexisting theory a scholar favors. Education: they find that overall that educational attainment has been improving over time for Mexican-Americans, but that it still lags far behind that of whites. In addition, when examining across generations, rather than over time, they note concerns about 3rd generation stagnation or even decline. While the children of the original respondents had significantly higher high school completion rates, the grandchildren did not substantially improve. They also find educational declines for children of original respondents who are 4th generation (meaning the original respondents were 3rd generation). They dismiss cultural or social capital explanations of this, demonstrating that the racialized treatment of Mexican-Americans in the school system seems to be the strongest explanation. Economic status: they find a "consistent lack of economic progress across generations-since-immigration." In their statistical models they find that immigration generation is not a significant predictor for socio-economic measures. Instead, they find that education is still the strongest driver, which they find troubling given the overall educational stagnation shown in the previous chapter. They also find that growing economic inequality in San Antonio and Los Angeles with the decline of middle-income industrial jobs has particularly negatively affected Mexican-Americans. Ethnic identity: they find "strong evidence of ethnic persistence across generations." They note that even into the 4th generation most respondents prefer Mexican, Mexican-American, or Hispanic labels to American. They note that these distinctions tend to stay even after other cultural indicators, such as Catholicism or Spanish language have disappeared. They also note significant differences between San Antonio and Los Angeles; in San Antonio the largest change was a growth in Latino/Hispanic identification, while in Los Angeles most continue to use Mexican or Mexican-American. They also believe racialization and othering to be the most effective explanations of this, as skin tone is a significant predictor. Conclusions: They believe ethnic boundaries for Mexican-Americans are not symbolic like they were for the descendants of European immigrants. However, they also believe there has been slow, gradual change, unlike that shown by the racialization of blacks. Overall, this leads them to favor a racialization explanation of immigrant assimilation. Method: Telles and Ortiz re-interview 684 of the nearly 1,200 respondents who were younger than fifty in the original 1965 survey of Mexican-Americans and 758 of their children. This original was undertaken in Los Angeles and San Antonio. ASSSIMILATION

Thomson, Mark, and Maurice Crul. 2007. "The Second Generation in Europe and the United States: How is the Transatlantic Debate Relevant for Further Research on the European Second Generation?" Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(7): 1025-1041. (17 pages)

This article introduces a special issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies that focuses on the second generation in Europe. They begin by trying to define "integration," arguing that it involves not just qualifications (i.e., education) and labor market activity, but also less quantifiable aspects like culture, ethnic/religious identity, citizenship, and race. They also stress the importance of considering national context when studying integration, an issue they argue has been ignored by many American immigration researchers. Research on Europe is often much more cross-national, partly because of how close together they are (physically and economically) while also being structured very differently. Two key theoretical approaches have sought to explain differences in immigration patterns: the citizenship approach and the institutional approach. Examining how scholars have drawn on mainly U.S.-based theories of integration, the authors argue that recent research has drawn upon segmented assimilation's focus on downward assimilation and upward mobility through ethnic cohesion. However, they note that the concept of downward assimilation does not translate perfectly to the European context, as the theory depends on structural features of the U.S. economy and society, while ethnic cohesion remains limited in Europe. In contrast to segmented assimilation, they propose two theoretical approaches for studying the second generation in Europe: 1) the importance of national context and 2) the notion of "blurred" and "bright" boundaries. The authors end by providing brief summaries of the other articles in the special issue. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31(4): 975-1008. (34 pages)

This piece is largely a review of segmented assimilation and various pieces of research on it. Zhou concludes by stating that segmented assimilation addresses the reality that today's immigrants are highly diverse and often are assimilating into different segments of society. While some are viewed as "unassimilable" despite all efforts to shed ethnic identity, others are viewed positively precisely because they retain them. Depending on whether one is assimilating into a middle-class white suburb or an urban ghetto, the most effective form of acculturation can be completely different. Nonetheless, she argues that the research suggests several factors that can show who are more susceptible to certain paths. External factors such as economic structure, racial discrimination, and segregation, and group-specific factors, such as financial, human, and social capital play a large role. Zhou concludes by saying there is still a lack of quality data on the subject. Large-scale data sets like the Census lack information on parental birthplace and immigrant generation, as well as contextual neighborhood factors. ASSIMILATION

Tuan, Mia. 1999. "Neither Real Americans nor Real Asians? Multigeneration Asian Ethnics Navigating the Terrain of Authenticity." Qualitative Sociology 22(2):105-125. (21 pages)

Tuan discusses the "authenticity dilemma" of Asian-Americans in an era when 2/3 of all Asians in the US are foreign-born. She says that Asian-Americans are stuck in a situation of being deemed not "Asian enough" by other Asians, while simultaneously being viewed as foreign by other Americans. In particular, she notes how Asian-Americans are racialized and cannot escape being viewed as "other," no matter their generational status or individual beliefs. However, she emphasizes the ways that many Asian-Americans resist these essentialist labels. Instead, they argue that Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and others, have their unique cultures that are not solely based in upholding cultural practices of their origin countries. Method: 95 interviews with middle-class 3rd+ generation Chinese and Japanese-Americans in California. ASSIMILATION

Zolberg, Aristide R. 2007. "Immigration Control Policy: Law and Implementation." Pp. 29-42 in The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, edited by Mary Waters and Reed Ueda. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (14 pages)

Zolberg (2007) provides a thorough overview of the major immigration control policies of the U.S. He begins by discussing the reduction of "main gate" (or front door) immigration from Europe in the 1920s, when the United States established national-origins quotas designed to restore the country's pre-Civil War ethnic profile. This was implemented via "remote control" (e.g., visas acquired abroad), and primarily targeted Eastern/Southern Europeans (who were unassimilable) and Asians (who were unacceptable). With the elimination of European workers, industrialists a) encouraged internal migration of African Americans from the South and b) retained an open back door by preventing restrictions on people from Western Hemisphere (i.e., Mexico). During WWII, the U.S. and Mexico established the bracero temporary worker program. Discriminatory quotas were reenacted in 1952. This also allowed the entrance of refugees, which was largely governed by foreign policy considerations. In the 1960s, the quota system began to be seen as on par with segregation, while the bracero program was terminated under pressure of organized labor, though it was evident that Mexican labor would flow in an unregulated fashion because it was vital to industry. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 established an annual limit of 170,000 entries for Eastern Hemisphere, with limit of 20,000 from any one country, and provided for unlimited admission of children, parents, and spouses of American citizens. The lawmakers' intent was to keep immigration at low levels, but legal immigration and the foreign-born population each soon increased by half. The composition shifted dramatically away from European countries, while the inclusion of siblings and adult children within the family reunification system produced a "chain" effect. The U.S. was once again a nation of immigrants, but this time mirrored the world more accurately. The Refugee Act of 1980 (not specifically named in this article) was an amendment to this Act, bringing the U.S. refugee policy into accord with international norms. It established a guideline of 50,000 refugee entries per year, and gave the President authority to admit a higher number if needed. It also established a process for asylum-seekers to claim asylum in the U.S. The next major milestone was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which legalized two categories of undocumented aliens (i.e., "granted amnesty"): 1) aliens present in the U.S. before 1982 and 2) "special agricultural workers" (SAWs), covering aliens who entered legally or illegally and worked in agriculture for at least 90 days in 1985-1986. It also denied access to federal needs-based assistance for period of 5 years, but increased burden on states and localities. Finally, it set aside 10,000 visas for countries disadvantaged by 1965 law, in particular as a way to open the door for Irish nationals (what came to be known eventually as "diversity visas"). IRCA legalized nearly 3 million people, and also imposed sanctions on employers who hired illegal aliens. However, IRCA failed as a mechanism to close the back door. Eventually, the annual cap on immigration was raised to 675,000, the "diversity" category officially created by the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act (50,000 per year) , and the number of immediate relatives admitted in a given year began to be deducted from the family allocation for the following year. The final major piece of immigration control policy was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), passed in 1996. This doubled the number of border agents, constructed physical barriers in heavily trafficked areas, and stiffened penalties for entry. In conjunction with IIRIRA, Congress passed Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, or "welfare reform") which severely limited immigrant access to welfare and social services. Zolberg (2007) also discusses other notable pieces of legislation, including Proposition 187 in California and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Boyd, Monica. 1989. "Family and personal networks in international migration: recent developments and new agendas." International Migration Review XXIII(3): 638-670. (33 pages)

Boyd reviews research on the role that personal networks, families, and broader elements of social structure shape international migration. She begins by describing how changing patterns of international migration since the 1960's have led scholars to move away from push-pull theories focusing exclusively on individual utility towards an understanding of the structural factors that influence migration through the establishment of dynamic, interdependent, and reciprocal "migration systems" that emphasize the linkages between sending and receiving countries. Social relations, in the form of personal, community, and family networks are a crucial part of these systems: scholars have emphasized the family as a central dimension of both micro and macro features of migration systems "because households are units which mediate between individuals and the larger structural setting". Boyd argues that states shape family-induced migration flows through bilateral agreements (such as the Bracero program and targeted recruitment in the Middle East) and immigration policies that define family members' sponsorship criteria. Boyd also argues that while family migration is typically viewed as "non-economic" this characterization is "facile if not inaccurate", as family migration sometimes represent a household-level strategy of income maximization in the short term, with the aim of return. Boyd outlines two directions for the role that networks and family ties can play in migration research: the first stresses the conditions under which personal networks fail to emerge or disappear, and the second argues that more attention must be paid to how gender, the gender division of labor, and male hierarchies of power and authority in origin and destination countries shape migration patterns. WHY PEOPLE MOVE

Putnam, Robert. 2007. "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty first Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture" Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137-165. (29 pages)

Abstract: Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to 'hunker down'. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration. ASSIMILATION

Jiménez, Tomás R., and Adam L. Horowitz. 2013. "When White is Just Alright: How Immigrants Redefine Achievement and Reconfigure the Ethnoracial Hierarchy." American Sociological Review 78(5): 849-871. (23 pages)

Abstract: Research on immigration, educational achievement, and ethnoraciality has followed the lead of racialization and assimilation theories by focusing empirical attention on the immigrant- origin population (immigrants and their children), while overlooking the effect of an immigrant presence on the third-plus generation (U.S.-born individuals of U.S.-born parents), especially its white members. We depart from this approach by placing third-plus-generation individuals at center stage to examine how they adjust to norms defined by the immigrant- origin population. We draw on fieldwork in Cupertino, California, a high-skilled immigrant gateway, where an Asian immigrant-origin population has established and enforces an amplified version of high-achievement norms. The resulting ethnoracial encoding of academic achievement constructs whiteness as having lesser-than status. Asianness stands for high- achievement, hard work, and success; whiteness, in contrast, represents low-achievement, laziness, and academic mediocrity. We argue that immigrants can serve as a foil against which the meaning and status of an ethnoracial category is recast, upending how the category is deployed in daily life. Our findings call into question the position that treats the third-plus generation, especially whites, as the benchmark population that sets achievement norms and to which all other populations adjust. Method: 61 interviews with 3rd+ generation Americans in Cupertino, CA, a high-SES area with a majority Asian-identifying population in Silicon Valley. ASSIMILATION

Alba, Richard, and Nancy Foner. 2014. "Comparing Immigrant Integration in North America and Western Europe: How Much do the Grand Narratives Tell Us?" International Migration Review 48: S263-S291. (29 pages)

Alba and Foner (2014) investigate the so-called "grand narratives" that academics try to use to provide all-encompassing explanations of the success of immigrant integration (or lack thereof) and cross-national similarities and differences. They note that immigrant integration will become critical over the next several decades, due to profound demographic changes in North America and Europe (aging baby boomers and immigrant-origin young adults). They examine 5 grand ideas and their theoretical rationales: 1) national philosophies/models of immigrant integration, rooted in national cultural and historical traditions; 2) the fundamental nature of a country's political economy; 3) the characterization of the U.S. and Canada as "settler" or historical immigration societies, distinct from the old world societies of Western Europe (assuming settler societies are better at integrating immigrants because they were founded and peopled by immigrants); 4) the exceptionalism of the U.S. (either because the U.S. is better at providing access to membership rights and social mobility or worse in terms of its meager social welfare benefits, economic inequality, and racist history); and 5) the idea of convergence between North America and Europe. The authors evaluate each grand idea on a number of domains: residential segregation; labor market incorporation; second-generation education; ability to gain political office; the role of race and religion; intermarriage patterns; and national identities and feelings of belong. They conclude that while some of the grand ideas do help to explain patterns of integration in particular domains, none of them provide a sufficient explanation and each has significant failings. Furthermore, none of these highlight the features that the authors argue are most important to integration: the characteristics/qualities that immigrants bring with them; demographic and other social/economic trends; and the historically rooted social, political, and economic institutions in each receiving society that create the barriers and bridges to integration. They use the example of the role of religion in immigrant/native cleavages to demonstrate their point. They conclude by discussing the ways that the second-generation immigrants remain disadvantaged as a result of education systems. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Alba, Richard, and Tariqul Islam. 2009. "The case of the disappearing Mexican Americans: An Ethnic-Identity Mystery." Population Research and Policy Review 28(2): 109-121. (13 pages)

Alba and Islam find that there have been significant shifts in the identification of Mexican-Americans in the US Census. These shifts are selective, meaning that comparing outcomes such as segregation across Censuses may yield biased results. However, it is difficult to correct for because there are offsetting exits away from Mexican identity to more mainstream white identities or to pan-ethnic Hispanic/Latino identities. They demonstrate that those with Mexican ancestry identifying as non-Hispanic are higher proportion white, speak only English at higher rates, and have higher educational attainment. This is indicative of a traditional assimilation process. On the other hand, those identifying as "other Hispanic" seem to have lower rates on these measures than those identifying as "Mexican." As a result, they conclude that demographers and sociologists need to be careful treating officially identifying Mexican-Americans as a stable group to be studied over time. Method: Alba and Islam examine birth cohorts of US-born people reporting some Mexican ancestry across Census years. They find a consistent decrease in the percentage of those with Mexican ancestry identifying officially as Mexican-American on the Census within cohorts. This shift may be partially explained by a change in the wording of the Census questionnaire between 1990 and 2000, but shifts were already occurring between 1980 and 1990. In addition, they show that a similar pattern does not emerge for Cuban-Americans, demonstrating the validity of this measure. ASSIMILATION

Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1-66; 215-292. (144 pages)

Alba and Nee's (2003) new assimilation theory builds on the theoretical assumptions of new institutionalism: (1) agents act according to mental models shaped by cultural beliefs (2) they follow rule-of-thumb heuristics in solving problems that arise and (3) operate under bounded rationality (choices made according to perceptions of costs and benefits embedded in the institutional environment). Alba and Nee (2003) identify the causal mechanisms of assimilation: proximate causes at the individual and social network levels shaped by the forms of capital that individuals and groups possess, and distal, often deeper causes embedded in larger structures such as the institutional arrangements of the state, firm, and labor market. Their theory, unlike straight-line theory, doesn't view assimilation as an inevitable conforming to the Anglo middle-class ideal. To the extent that assimilation occurs, it proceeds incrementally, usually as an intergenerational process and hat the majority changes as well. The American mainstream is constantly reshaped by the incorporation of different groups. Individuals purposive action using various forms of human capital (Sanders and Nee, 2001), and institutional context that shapes action - create, maintain, and change ethnic boundaries and generate different trajectories of incorporation. Descendants of immigrant minorities will assimilate at varying rates depending on the mix of family capital that the immigrant generation brings. Institutional mechanisms of monitoring and enforcement of formal rules of the state organizations determine whether the proximate mechanisms (purpose action and network mechanisms_ advance blending or segregating processes among the immigrant group. Institutional mechanisms explains the different experiences of European and non-white immigrants to the US. European immigrants had basic legal rights that kept channels of mobility open while non-whites did not. In the post civil rights era, institutional mechanisms have increased the cost of discrimination and led to changes in values. Unlike segmented assimilation, new assimilation theory is an agnostic view of assimilation as the process of becoming similar, and not the normative view that there is something to assimilate to. ASSIMILATION

Bowen, John, Christophe Bertossi, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Mona Lena Krook. 2014. European States and Their Muslim Citizens: The Impact of Institutions on Perceptions and Boundaries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1: "An Institutional Approach to Framing Muslims in Europe." Pp. 1-28. (28 pages)

Bowen et al. (2014) discuss the role of institutions in shaping how European states respond to Muslim immigrants. Negative claims about Muslims and Islam abound in the public discourse in Western Europe, as public officials denounce Islam for its retrograde values and argue that Islam is incompatible with European values (e.g., ban on Islamic veil in public schools in France). This implies that Muslims must choose between abandoning their religion and remaining outside of the boundaries of modern European citizenry. While cross-national differences are important and national model approaches may help point to important cross-national differences, the authors argue that variations must be understood in the context of two dynamics: 1) the relative autonomy of what takes place in different institutional settings and 2) the national ideologies that shape both reasoning and practices. The authors situate their approach between two broad sociological approaches: with institutionalist approaches, they share the premise that the social life of institutions isn't found in their rule-books but rather the everyday interactions and the norms, representations, and practical schemas that inform those interactions. With those who conduct comparative studies of moral boundaries and social hierarchies, they share the assumption that norms, representations, and practices are shaped by cultural premises around justice, morality and value. Their work focuses not only on institutions as the source of schemas and practices, but also on the multiple pressures and motivations within any one institution. They conduct a comparison of how institutions inflect national models (e.g., how hospitals, schools, and courts have their own rules and roles that are similar across national models), and how differently situated actors within an institution draw on distinct schemas with respect to Muslim colleagues or clients. The first part of their book highlights the diversities and contradictions within three major types of institutions that are defined by certain tasks: hospitals, schools, and the military. The second part focuses on the relationship between particular institutions and national political/cultural ideologies, examining the schemas and norms that shape judicial decisions, policy outputs, and political rhetoric, and how these outputs in turn shape national imaginaries. The authors end with a summary of each chapter in the book. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Brubaker, William Rogers. 1990. "Immigration, Citizenship and the Nation State in France and Germany: A Comparative Historical Analysis." International Sociology 5(4): 379-407. (29 pages)

Brubaker's (1990) article examines the question, "How does the reality of 21st century immigration conflict with the ideal type of 'nation-state'?" He outlines six membership norms characterizing the ideal-typical model of nation-state membership. Contemporary immigration challenges these ideal-typical views of nation-state membership. That is, immigration exacerbates the decoupling of reality from the ideal-typical model. 1. Egalitarian: all citizens are equal 2. Sacred: citizens must make sacrifices for nation-state 3. National: political community is also a cultural community, sharing language, mores and character 4. Democratic: there is equal opportunities for each citizens 5. Unique: each person belong to one and only one state 6. Socially consequential: citizenship entails certain privileges for members over non-members He then examines the differences in the citizenship status of immigrants in France and Germany. While birth and residence in France automatically transform second-generation immigrants into citizens, birth and residence in Germany have no bearing on citizenship. While the French citizenry is defined as a territorial community, the German citizenry is defined as a community of descent. These diverging definitions of the citizenry embody and express distinctive understandings of nationhood: state-centered and assimilationist in France versus ethnocultural and differentialist in Germany. Each "unique history and social environment" directs their immigration policies. The politics of citizenship has been informed by distinctive national self-understandings, deeply rooted in political and cultural geography and powerfully reinforced at particular historical conjunctures. CITIZENSHIP

Brubaker, Rogers. 2001. "The Return of Assimilation?: Changing Perspectives on Immigration and Its Sequels in France, Germany and the United States." Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(4): 531-548. (18 pages)

Brukbaker (2001) argues that the "differentialist" turn (i.e., being more sensitive to and supportive of difference) of the last quarter of the 20th century may have reached its peak, and instead there are signs of a modest "return of assimilation." Using a comparative analysis of public discourse France, public policy in Germany, and scholarly research in the U.S., the author argues that the assimilation that has returned is not the old concept that has been analytically discredited (and politically disreputable), but rather a more analytically complex and normatively defensible understanding. But what exactly is returning? He distinguishes between two basic meanings of assimilation, one that is general/abstract and one that is specific/organic. In the general and abstract sense, the core meaning of assimilation is the process of becoming similar (i.e., an intransitive meaning), with a focus on the process rather than the final state. Assimilation designates a direction of change, not a degree of similarity. In the specific and organic sense, the root meaning is transitive, meaning complete absorption. The focus is on the end state, and assimilation is either/or rather than a degree. The transitive use of assimilation has become problematic, while the intransitive, general, abstract sense has not. Therefore, the term assimilation has returned but the concept is different. He summarizes the main elements of this transformation: 1) a shift from organic to abstract understandings of assimilation; 2) a shift from transitive to intransitive understandings of assimilation; 3) a shift in the unit of change from individuals to multiple generations; 4) a shift from homogenous to heterogenous units; 5) a shift in the normative concern informing research on assimilation from cultural to socioeconomic matters; and 6) a shift from a "holistic" approach (that conceptualized assimilation toward a single reference population of the core culture) to a disaggregated approach that considers multiple reference populations with distinct processes in each domain. He highlights this return to assimilation in three contexts: 1) public discourse in France (movement from emphasis on difference of ethnic groups to importance of assimilation/national solidarity/French identity); 2) public policy in Germany (easing of naturalization laws); and 3) scholarly research in the U.S. (analyses that identify less normative focus on need to assimilate to Protestant core culture). COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Alba, Richard. 2005. "Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States." Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 20-49. (30 pages)

Comparative study of immigrant populations in the United States (Mexican), France (North Africans) and Germany (Turks). Interested in the circumstances under which second-generation immigrants achieve parity of life chances with peers in ethnic majority, or face exclusion from societal mainstream. This outcome dependent on whether boundary for ethnic group is bright or blurred, with the former referring to unambiguous boundaries and the latter to ambiguous boundaries. The extent to which a boundary is blurred or bright is determined by the extent to which the boundary is institutionalized. Identifies four dimensions along which boundaries can be institutionalized: 1) Citizenship, 2) Religion, 3) Language, and 4) race. For example, with respect to citizenship Germany has brightest boundaries (prior to 1999, requirements included surrender of previous citizenship), followed by France with intermediate brightness (second generation becomes citizen at age 18), and the US with most blurred boundary. When boundary is bright, assimilation is likely to occur via boundary crossing. When assimilation requires breaking ties from network of origin, assimilation unlikely to occur in high numbers in second-generation. Boundary blurring can occur when mainstream culture and identity are porous and allow for incorporation of cultural elements of immigrant groups. ASSIMILATION

Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530: 74-96. (23 pages)

Core point: segmented assimilation among second gen immigrants-- focuses on Haitian-American immigrants in particular. Three "segmented" options: 1) Assimilate to white culture 2) Assimilate to underclass Black/African-American culture ---Black/African-American culture in urban settings characterized by oppositional orientation to white culture. This creates a paradox in that socioeconomic mobility may be buttressed by non-assimilation, as assimilation to Black culture (downward assimilation) leads to downward socioeconomic mobility 3) Preserve immigrant community values and solidarity There is an increasing number of non-white immigrants to the United States. Their experience different than last sociological study of second generation immigrants that focused on Italian Americans. For newer immigrant populations, native whites view immigrant group with related native born minority group (e.g., Haitian-American immigrants viewed as Black Americans) Growing gap between menial job pay (first gen amenable to this) and technical jobs that are dominated by natives. Limited middle class means second gen must traverse gap between working and professional class in one generation. ASSIMILATION

Crul, Maurice, and Jeroen Doomernik. 2003. "The Turkish and the Moroccan second generation in the Netherlands: Divergent Trends between and Polarization within the two Groups." International Migration Review 37(4): 1039-1065. (27 pages)

Crul and Doomernik (2003) compare the socioeconomic and sociocultural integration experiences of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands, focusing specifically on the second-generation. The Netherlands has 5 main ethnic groups of immigrants, coming from Indonesia, Surinam, Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean, Turkey, and Morocco. Immigrants from Indonesia mostly came after World War II, while the other four groups began arriving in the 1960s and 1970s. The authors focus specifically on immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, who have similar socioeconomic and religious backgrounds, and face difficulties not encountered by Surinamese and Antillean immigrants, such as their more disadvantaged circumstances of origin and their lack of shared language, history, and culture with the Dutch. Both Turkish and Moroccan immigrants were recruited as guest-workers, but while they arrived simultaneously, they have developed in different directions. The authors compare the education, labor market, and sociocultural outcomes of second-generation Turkish and Moroccan immigrants. They find that educational attainment among both groups is lower than their Dutch peers, with obstacles deriving from institutional structures (e.g., early school sorting mechanisms; delay in second-language training) and from pressures within their own ethnic groups (e.g., attitudes toward education for girls). Their low levels of educational attainment have resulted in many second-generation children ending up in dead-end vocational jobs or being unemployed. They often face discrimination in the labor market as well. However, the number of students finding success in education is also growing. Personal and co-ethnic community networks are crucial to second-generation immigrants' success. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Wimmer, Andreas. 2008. "The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory." American Journal of Sociology 113(4): 970-1022. (53 pages)

Ethnic differentiation and boundaries are strategically chosen by actors in order to best support their claims for to prestige, moral worth and political power. Yet, ethnic boundary making is constrained by macrolevel attributes of the social field, such as the political/ institutional order, power hierarchies/ positioning, and network of political alliances. What question(s) does the work answer? What accounts for the making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries? Why are ethnic groups, empirically, so variable? Summary/ Definitions: Wimmer defines ethnicity as a social construction, arguing that it is not ascribed. It is a subjectively felt sense of belonging based on the belief of shared culture and ancestry (following Weber). What does the work argue against? He acknowledges constructivism/instrumentalism (and its opposite, primordialism/essentialism). His work attempts to transcend these debates regarding the nature of ethnicity. He is less interested in discovering what ethnicity "really is" and more interested in understanding why there are so many variable forms of ethnicity. What's the theoretical framework? He takes a social fields approach. His "multilevel process model" of ethnic boundary making "leads from the macrostructural level to the agency of individuals and aggregates their actions back to the macrostructural level." By going from macro to micro to macro again, his model shows how different actors will pursue different strategies of boundary making (depending on their position in the hierarchies of power and the structure of their political networks) and how these strategies then result in macro-level ethnic boundaries. Unlike pure instrumental conceptions of ethnicity, though, Wimmer importantly notes that institutions, power and networks condition strategies—while actors are strategic and can make choices, their strategies are constrained by social position, context, etc. ASSIMILATION

Foner, Nancy, and Richard Alba. 2008. "Immigrant Religion in the US and Western Europe: Bridge or Barrier to Inclusion?" International Migration Review 42(2): 360-392. (33 pages)

Foner and Alba (2008) investigate why religion is seen as problematic in Western Europe and as a facilitator of adaptation in the United States. U.S. social science literature emphasizes that "religion helps to turn immigrants into Americans and gives them and their children a sense of belonging or membership in the United States" (365), while scholarly work in Western Europe analyzes Islam as a "barrier or challenge to integration and a source of conflict with mainstream institutions and practices" (368). The authors argue that the difference between Western Europe and the U.S. in how religion affects integration stems from whether religion (as a belief system, an institution, and a community) can play a major role for immigrants and their children as a "bridge to inclusion" in their new society. The answer varies between Western Europe and the United States for three key reasons: 1) the religious backgrounds between the two contexts are different, as most immigrants to the U.S. are Christian while most immigrants to Western Europe are Muslim; 2) Western Europe populations struggle to recognize religious based claims because they are more secular than the United States, where much of the population is religiously involved; and 3) the historically rooted relations and arrangements between the state and religious groups in Europe have led to more difficulty in incorporating and accepting new religions than in the U.S. The authors mostly focus on four receiving countries in Western Europe representing different institutional approaches to religion: France, Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands. They end the article by considering the opposite of the above argument, namely threats in the U.S. to religion as a facilitator of immigration and government efforts in Western Europe to accommodate Islam. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Fox, Cybelle. 2012. Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 6 and 7. (64 pages)

Fox argues that despite how little attention has been paid to it, "in certain times and places, the welfare state may best be viewed as an extension of the Immigration Service, where one of its functions becomes, not the provision of assistance but rather the expulsion of individuals or even segments of an entire population from the nation." She shows how in the early 20th century the welfare state denied service to immigrants, threatened and enacted deportations, and literally turned into a bureau of the Immigration Service. In large part this was a reaction to the Depression and nativist views of economic threat. However, Fox also shows the ways this was geographically contingent and often shaped by local culture and institutions. For example, relief agencies in the Southwest often collaborated most closely in removing immigrants. In Los Angeles, welfare distributors not only complied with Immigration, but actively planned and encouraged raids. However, those in the Northeast and Midwest were less likely to comply. In particular, politicians and social workers in Chicago worked to resist the Immigration Service. All of these regions had pro-deportation politicians, but Fox argues that the political machines in Chicago were reliant on immigrant votes. In addition, local organizations, such as the Immigrants' Protective League, protested and actively worked to prevent deportations and welfare agencies refused to release confidential information. Combined, this shows the ways that political context drastically shaped the enactment of policy.

Garip, Filiz. 2012. "Discovering Diverse Mechanisms of Migration: The Mexico-U.S. Stream 1970-2000." Population and Development Review 38(3): 393-433. (41 pages)

Garip uses clustering algorithms on data from the Mexican National Survey of Population Dynamics and the Mexican Migration Project, to identify and empirically validate distinct mechanisms of migration outlined in previous theories. Garip outlines three theories that drive individuals to migrate: neoclassical economics theories of migration (where migration is driven by wage disparities among origin and destination countries; Borjas a proponent), the new economics theory (where migration is a household-level strategy and individuals in households migrate to mitigate economic risk; Stark & collaborators proponents), and cumulative causation theory (where " the growing web of social ties between countries of origin and destination fosters the migration of individuals who are connected to earlier migrants"; Massey & collaborators main proponents). She argues that these theories are not competing accounts, but reflect diverse mechanisms among a heterogeneous pool or migrants. Using individual, household, and community characteristics, Garip identifies four clusters of migrants corresponding to different theories: 1) male migrants with no education living in rural poor communities (which she posits as acting according to the neoclassical theory's predictions); 2) sons of household heads with some property and only some education (risk diversifiers); 3) unemployed female migrants with many social ties to the US (cumulative causation); and 4) urban, higher-educated migrants that do not strictly correspond to a theory (urban migrants). Garip shows that while all clusters of migrants are present over time, each type becomes more prevalent according to the economic and political conditions in the US and Mexico: when US relative wages were highest (1970's), migrants in the neoclassical cluster were more prevalent. Risk diversifiers were more prevalent in periods where the Mexican inflation rate was increasing (1980's), while network migrants became more prevalent in the 90's and urban migrants since the 90's. Garip also shows how each migration theory was developed as these specific migrant types became prominent. WHY PEOPLE MOVE

Gonzalez, Roberto G. 2011. "Learning to be Illegal: Undocumented Youth and Shifting Legal Contexts in the Transition to Adulthood." American Sociological Review 76(4): 602-619. (18 pages)

Gonzalez describes the process of how undocumented youth transition from "suspended illegality" to coping with its full effects. He argues that as adolescents these 1.5-generation undocumented youths are in a "buffer stage" because they are largely integrated and protected within public schools. These students socialize with their US-born and documented peers and are largely not blocked from opportunities. However, they begin to "discover" their illegality around the age of 16, when legal status starts to have future consequences. For example, at this age his respondents began to be blocked from finding jobs, applying to colleges, or obtaining a driver's license. In the next stage, from ages 18-24, he says respondents learn to be illegal. Here respondents begin to feel the effects of stressful and temporary work, high financial need with little work experience, and the many dangers of being undocumented that formal schooling did not prepare them for. Finally, he says there is a coping stage around the age of 25. In this stage respondents begin to solidify the knowledge that their status is permanent. In addition, there is a convergence of those who managed to stave off the learning stage by attending college and those who did not. Despite differences in educational background, these respondents find themselves with limited options. Method: 150 semi-structured interviews with 1.5-generation young adults ages 20-34 from Mexico in California. LEGAL STATUS

Lee, Jennifer, and Min Zhou. 2015. The Asian American Achievement Paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pp. 1-114, 179-200. (136 pages)

High Asian-American achievement has often been associated with cultural causal claims relying on the "model minority" stereotype. Lee and Zhou argue that this is because "structuralist" researchers have not done an adequate job explaining the ethnic differences in achievement that persist beyond basic structural explanations, leaving the door open for cultural essentialist arguments. Instead, they place culture "front and center" but show the ways that culture is shaped by structure. They describe this as an "emergent" structure, wherein culture emerges from structure, but the two are mutually constitutive. Lee and Zhou argue that structural, cultural, and social psychological factors interact to provide Chinese and Vietnamese-Americans with a "toolkit" of resources. In particular, they note the roles of educational selectivity, ethnic community resources, and host-society reception. For example, they show that Asian immigrants are hyper-selected, meaning they have both high absolute levels of education and high relative levels of education compared to their sending countries. Similar to Feliciano, they argue that this relative selectivity provides Asian immigrants with a class-specific cultural frame of success that emphasizes educational achievement. In turn, this frame leads to the creation of "ethnic capital" through organizations created by the co-ethnic community to bolster attainment. These organizations help share information and navigate institutions. This frame is then reflected back to Asian students by educational institutions, who often assume them to be smart and high-achieving. Lee and Zhou note that teachers often have higher expectations for Asian-American students and devote more time and resources to them. As these factors coalesce to create high educational outcomes, the stereotype is reinforced, only furthering this advantage through "stereotype promise," the opposite of stereotype threat. Nonetheless, Lee and Zhou emphasize that this can be a double-edged sword. Those who do not fit into this narrow success frame often face psychological tolls and may even opt out of their ethnic identity. Overall, this shows that culture matters for the educational attainment of Asian-Americans, but not in the ways essentialist pundits claim. Method: In-depth interviews with 82 2nd-generation Chinese and Vietnamese-Americans, 56 2nd-generation Mexican-Americans, and 24 3rd+-generation whites and blacks all taken from the IIMMLA survey. They ground the interviews in the quantitative survey data. ASSIMILATION

Vertovec, Steven. 2007. "Super diversity and its implications" Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024-1054. (31 pages)

In the United Kingdom, government policies and public opinion have been framed in terms of a certain understanding of immigration and diversity, namely one of large African-Caribbean (e.g., Jamaica, Trinidad) and South Asian (e.g., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) communities from Commonwealth countries or formerly colonial territories. However, the author argues that both policy and public understanding have not kept up with emerging demographic and social patterns. In response, Vervotec (2007) proposes the concept of "super-diversity," which he says is a notion that suggests a scale and kind of complexity not seen previously. He notes that it isn't enough to consider diversity only in terms of ethnicity, but rather we must also take into consideration additional variables such as country of origin, migration channel, legal status, migrants' human capital, access to employment and divergent labor market experiences, transnationalism, discrete gender and age profiles, patterns of spatial distribution, and mixed local area responses. The interplay of all if these factors make up the concept of "super-diversity." While the variables that compose super-diversity are not new, it is the emergence of their scale and mutual conditioning that warrant new conceptual consideration. In putting forth this new concept, Vervotec underscores the fact that not only are migrants arriving from more places, but there are many additional variables that have arisen out of the recent patterns of immigration to the U.K. He also calls for social scientists and policy makers to employ a lens of super-diversity in their work, taking into account the conjunction of ethnicity with other variables when considering immigrant communities' composition, trajectories, and needs. To support his argument, the author draws on data indicating the emergence of super-diversity in London specifically and the UK more broadly, and also discusses implications for social scientific theory and methods. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

FitzGerald, David Scott. 2017. "The History of Racialized Citizenship" Pp. 129-148 in The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship, edited by Ayelet Shachar, Rainer Bauböck, Irene Bloemraad, and Maarten Vink. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (20 pages)

In this paper, Fitzgerald goes over the history of racialized citizenship and argues that, at least empirically, ideas of civicness and citizenship based on territoriality (jus soli) are not inherently less racialized than ideas of citizenship based on common descent (jus sanguini). FitzGeraldargues that citizenship can be ethnicized/racialized at four moments: birthright acquisition, naturalization, denationalization, and the "internal dimension of citizenship" (already citizens, but the status of a group relative to others within the state). While scholars generally hold that racism emerged with European colonization, FitzGerald notes how proto-racialized citizenship emerged in antiquity by contrasting Athenian citizenship, based on principles of descent, to Roman citizenship based on territory (even if Roman elites were xenophobic against certain groups). In Iberia, a racialized form of citizenship related to religion emerged with restrictions and expulsions towards Jews and Muslim descendants, even if they were converts to Catholicism. FitzGerald does note, however, that "colonization did generate many of the features of modern racism, as European settlers sought to justify their [...] conquest". FitzGerald then draws on multiple examples of nation states enacting racial elements to their citizenship policies regardless of whether they ascribe to jus sanguini or jus soli. While he recognizes that "there is an inherent tension between the abstract principles of jus soli and an ethnonational understanding of the nation", FitzGerald shows how governments resolve this tension in racialized ways by drawing on examples from US and Canadian restrictions on naturalization in the 19th and early 20th century. The denaturalization of persons with Jewish descent in mid-twentieth century fascist states is an extreme example, but FitzGerald also shows how more contemporary policies in South Africa and the Dominican Republic aim to denaturalize citizens on racial grounds, even if they thinly veil these aims under notions of language, culture, or legal status. FitzGerald ends by showing how countries enact positive ethnic preferences for citizenship under treaties with former colonial subjects, but argues that while ethnic preferences persist in citizenship laws, the institutionalization of legal deracialization in the nation-state system will withstand challenges from "religious bigotry and xenophobia". CITIZENSHIP

Jiménez, Tomás R. 2008. "Mexican Immigrant Replenishment and the Continuing Significance of Ethnicity and Race." American Journal of Sociology 113(6): 1527-1567. (41 pages)

Jimenez argues that one of the reasons why ethnic distinctions among the descendants of Mexican immigrants and the US born persist is because of the continuous stream of US-Mexico migration. Among the descendants of pre-1965 European immigrants, ethnic distinctions declined with each successive generation: Jimenez argues that part of this is because "the virtual cessation of European immigration meant that each generation born in the United States came of age in an American society that was decidedly less immigrant in character". In contrast, the descendants of Mexican immigrants are exposed to a continuous stream of first-generation immigrants. This continuous stream sharpens the boundaries between those with Mexican descent and other native-born individuals (intergroup boundaries) and the boundaries within the Mexican descent population (intragroup boundaries), reinforcing the importance of ethnicity among individuals of Mexican descent. Drawing on qualitative data from Kansas and California, Jimenez shows how respondents witnessed and responded to nativism towards Mexicans, sharpening intergroup boundaries between those with and without Mexican descent. Jimenez also shows how ideas of "ethnic authenticity" shape interactions between Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants, limiting Mexican Americans' "option to freely assert their own interpretations of ethnic identity". Jimenez ends by arguing that "the mechanisms that limit Mexican Americans' ability to experience ethnicity symbolically, inconsequentially, and optionally are the very mechanisms that allow for just such an experience of ethnic identity for white ethnics": because ethnicity became less salient among Americans of European descent with the decline of European migration, ethnicity took on a symbolic character (related to Waters' work on ethnic options). ASSIMILATION

Joppke, Christian. 2013. "Tracks of Immigrant Political Incorporation." In Outsiders No More?: Models of Immigrant Political Incorporation, edited by Jennifer Hochschild, Jacqueline Chattopadhyay, Claudine Gay, and Michael Jones-Correa. New York: Oxford University Press. (20 pages)

Joppke takes up the question of immigrant political incorporation, distinguishing between how immigrants could be incorporated as different "units": incorporation as immigrants (for example, by giving voting rights to foreigners), incorporation as citizens (by giving immigrants citizenship and erasing their status as immigrants), or incorporation as members of ascriptive groups (e.g., Hispanics in the United States, "Muslims in Europe"). Joppke critiques the immigrants as immigrants approach as non-incorporation, as it "freezes" foreigners as immigrants, groups people under multiple statuses, and groups people under an administrative category ("immigrants") with "little group-making capacity". The incorporation as citizen, through naturalization, is prevalent in the US and other "classic immigrant countries" but politically contested in Europe, where the threshold for naturalization has typically been higher and Europeans implemented "guest worker" models that did not seek to incorporate immigrants (although many countries have moved to the naturalization model since). The "immigrants as groups" approach is not substitutive, but additional to the other two approaches: that is, immigrants can be thought of as members of ascriptive groups under the naturalization model of incorporation or the immigrant model of incorporation: the predominant group encompasses both citizens and non-citizens alike (i.e., native born Hispanics and undocumented Hispanics in the US). Joppke questions whether the state should ignore, recognize, or combat these ascriptive groupings. While liberal states generally resort to "ignoring" the groupness of immigrants, states enact policies that reify and/or attempt to erase these groupings (antidiscrimination policies and multiculturalism policies) and face challenges incorporating different types of groups (religious groups: Muslims in Europe as part of a holistic, transnational faith community at odds with the primacy of the "nation", and language groups, tolerated/promoted). The question of the degree to what liberal states should do to integrate immigrants as groups remains open: while liberal states typically "prioritizes the individual over the group as unit of integration", religious integration remains a challenge, given recognition of a multiplicity of religious organizations that are "in principle equally valid and equally worthy (or equally unworthy) of state support". ASSIMILATION

Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class and Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 (Racism compared) (64 pages)

Lamont (2000) conducts a comparative study between France and United States, inductively identifing norms that whites (ethnic majorities) perceive blacks (US) and North Africans (France) as violating (rather than pre-defining them as in survey research). The study is also novel in that it reveals blacks' (and North Africans) perceptions of whites. UNITED STATES Whites perceptions of blacks: Show that moral and racial boundaries are intertwined; whites use race as a means of drawing moral boundary. Work ethic and defense of traditional morality are means by which white workers place themselves above blacks. White anti racism rooted primarily in earning capacity (market mechanism to determine individual worth). In French context, more about human dignity (market mechanism is absent). Blacks perceptions of whites: Share perspectives with whites on market performance as a means for human equality. Critical of whites as being domineering and antithetical to caring qualities of blacks-- in this way, blacks see themselves as superior to whites. FRANCE Whites perceptions of North Africans: Whites more concerned with North African use of public support than individual work culture, as is the case in US--importance of republicanism and solidarity in French context. American system recognizes and legitimizes natural and social inequality, whereas French society does not. White French blame North Africans for taking too much of the pie, and not for taking public support in general as in the US Christian/ Muslim divide-- unbridgeable cultural fault line; perceived lack of civility among North Africans. Salient fault line for several reasons: 1) Muslim immigrants to Europe have less education, occupational prestige, are more religious than American counterparts 2) Muslim immigrants do not culturally assimilate 3) French culture requires assimilation in ways that American culture does not (republicanism; solidarity) North African views toward whites: 1) North Africans show that they are "good Arabs" through government documentation 2) Establish equality between themselves and majority group by highlighting human similarities (universal humanity, rather than market mechanism as seen in US) 3) See as superior in terms of interpersonal relationships-- stronger family values (akin to black's perceptions of whites in the US) COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE

Lee, Jennifer and Frank D. Bean. 2007. "Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and America's New Racial/Ethnic Divide." Social Forces 86(2): 561-586. (26 pages)

Lee and Bean use qualitative and quantitative data on multiracial identification to examine how the changing demographics of the United States, attributable to Asian and Latino immigration, intermarriage, and the growing multiracial population are shaping ethnic and racial divides in the United States. The authors identify three previous conceptualizations of the "color line": the white-nonwhite divide (where Asians and Latinos fall under the collective label "people of color" and are seen as unassimilable to the white category), the black-nonblack divide (where the relevant distinction is a "continuing and unique separation of blacks, not only from whites, but also from other non-white racial/ethnic groups"), and a tri-racial stratification system (associated with Bonilla-Silva's work: new stratification system consisting of whites (whites + assimilated white Latinos), honorary whites (Japanese/Chinese/Indian Americans, light-skinned Latinos) and collective blacks (blacks, Vietnamese Americans, dark-skinned Latinos, West Indians)). The authors find that multiracial reporting is higher among Asians and Latinos than among Blacks, and when interracial unions reported a single race for their children under 18, black-white couples were more likely to identify their children as black, while white-latino and white-asian couples were more likely to identify their children as white. Based on the interview data, the authors find that "outsider's ascription most powerfully constrains the racial/ethnic options for blacks", while this lack of constraint allows multiracial Latinos and Asians more options. The authors argue that these findings on multiracial individuals do not support the white-nonwhite color line model nor the tri-racial divide model: multiracial Asians and Latinos' experiences more closely align to whites, supporting the black-nonblack model of the color line. ASSIMILATION

Menijvar, Cecilia and Leisy Abrego. 2012. "Legal Violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants." American Journal of Sociology 117(5): 1380-1421. (42 pages)

Menjivar and Abrego draw on the concept of legal violence to examine how immigration laws and their implementation impact immigrant's lives in the domains of family, work, and school. Legal violence includes "the various, mutually reinforcing forms of violence that the law makes possible and amplifies", such as indefinite family separations, vulnerability to work exploitation, and barring from educational resources: these laws induce "structural and symbolic violence" that produce both "immediate social suffering" and "long-term harm", particularly for immigrants' incorporation prospects. Menjivar and Abrego note that immigration law both pushes immigrants outside the law, excluding them from the law's protection, while subjecting them to the law with forms of punishment. The law enacts structural violence because it encodes and conceals differential access to rewards through higher level units (like the labor market and school system); it also enacts symbolic violence by imposing "categories of thought on dominated social groups who then accept these categories and evaluate their conditions through these frames and think of their predicament as normal, thus perpetuating unequal social structures" (authors here are drawing on Bourdieu). Menjivar and Abrego discuss legal provisions increasingly linking immigration to criminal activity, expanding the range of crimes considered "aggravated felonies" like using someone else's Social Security number to work, provisions of the IIRIRA making it possible to deport documented immigrants with any felony convictions (even if they already served time), and agreements between ICE and local level law enforcement (like 287(g) and Secure Communities). The authors draw on fieldwork with Central American immigrants (see Menjivar 2006) to show how these immigrants experience violence attributable to changes in US immigration law even before entering the United States in the journey north. They also discuss how legal changes shape immigrant's exposure to legal violence through family separation, vulnerability at work (e.g., with raids at specific workplaces and revoking licenses of businesses hiring undocumented immigrants in Arizona, and by limiting employment options, thus locking immigrants into precarious jobs), and the school system (e.g.- ineligibility for college loans, experiencing stigma at school, cumulative stress due to own or family immigration status affecting educational performance). LEGAL STATUS

Menjívvar, Cecilia. 2006. "Liminal Legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan Lives in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 111(4): 999-1037. (39 pages)

Menjivar examines how the gray area "between" legal categories shapes immigrant's lives by drawing on the case of Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants in the United States. Menjivar draws on Victor Turner's concept of "liminality" as a "transitional intervening period between two relatively fixed or stable conditions" to describe the legal positions of Central Americans in the US, as their legal status is neither undocumented nor documented, their position is characterized by ambiguity. While their position has not "precluded these immigrants' social participation and political activism", their temporary status confines these immigrants to low-wage labor, denies them access to government services, and makes them vulnerable to deportation. Menjivar describes how some of these immigrants do not apply for renewal in fear of rejection and eventual deportation; she also documents how multiple deadlines and temporary amnesties sometimes apply for some members, but not others, of the same family. Menjivar stresses the connection between the states' policies towards specific foreign countries and immigrants' legal status, noting that although the characteristics of these Central Americans would typically classify them as refugees, TPS and DED did not grant asylum or refugee status but a work permit and a suspension of deportation for the duration of the programs. Menjivar also documents how religious institutions take on a central role supporting these immigrants with assistance. Overall, this article lend support to some of the broad tenets of segmented assimilation theory, where the context of reception (in the form of state policies) confine a group of immigrants to a subjugated position and "channels individuals to different paths of assimilation". Menjivar also notes that these immigrants make claims to "define themselves as legal" within the framework of the law, challenging the very notion of citizenship. LEGAL STATUS

Ngai, Mae. 2003. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965." Law and History Review 21(1): 69-107. (39 pages)

Ngai examines the Immigration Act of 1924 and how its enactment created the class of "illegal alien." Although deportation did exist previously in small numbers, the 1920s commenced the regime of "numerical restriction." In this time period unauthorized entry first became a criminal offense, a radical departure from treating it as a civil one. This emphasis on the enforcement of land borders had not previously existed, but it also gave way to quieter "slippage" towards enforcement in the interior. This was brought to the fore with the elimination of any statute of limitation on unauthorized entry. Ngai refers to this as both a "social reality" and a "legal impossibility"—that is, many undocumented immigrants were in reality embedded into the US for years but were nonetheless deemed viable for deportation. In addition, opposition to deportation often undertook the language of deserving vs. undeserving immigrants or just vs. unjust deportations. As a result of both of these changes, the legal debates surrounding border enforcement became central to defining inclusion in the USA and set up "divergent paths of immigrant racialization." While it became possible to unmake the illegality of many European immigrants, Mexican immigrants were deemed criminal and undeserving. Ngai concludes by reinforcing that this process is all tied to the original shift of focus of American law prioritizing territoriality and privileging Congressional rights over the rights of individual immigrants. LEGAL STATUS

Portes, Alejandro, and Erik Vickstrom. 2011. "Diversity, Social Capital, and Cohesion." Annual Review of Sociology 37: 461-479. (19 pages)

Portes and Vickstrom critically examine Putnam's concept of social capital and the purported effects of diversity (via immigration) on social capital and cohesion. The authors begin by distinguishing Bourdieu and Coleman's version of social capital from Putnam's. Bourdieu and Coleman see social capital as properties of individuals in networks of relationships (where relationships can be used to secure resources & transformed into other kinds of capital, a la Bourdieu, or where relationships can be used to enforce social norms and prevent anomie, a la Coleman), while Putnam abstracts social capital as an attribute of higher units, like cities, counties, or even countries. The authors begin by arguing that Putnam's hypothesized relationship between social capital and desirable socioeconomic outcomes are spurious correlations (where both things are caused by the same antecedent variable) or better attributed to reverse causality (where things like less inequality or higher education beget social capital, rather than the other way around). They then review the evidence for Putnam's "hunkering down" hypothesis: that "people in diverse communities are more likely to experience isolation and declines in social capital". Portes and Vickstrom argue that this hypothesis enjoys "qualified support" at best. The authors suggest that it is not diversity, but "unequal diversity" that shapes social capital, and Putnam's "social capital" "is really a by-product of more basic structural factors of which racial homogeneity, education, and economic equality are paramount". Portes and Vickstrom end by critiquing Putnam's emphasis on communitarianism (in the form of less diversity, more cohesion) as the basis of a good society. Drawing on Durkheim and Tonnies, the authors argue that a functioning modern society requires organic solidarity/gesellschaft, where institutions create impersonal norms and roles to coordinate individual expectations and collective goals. While immigration might bring about cultural diversity, the presence of strong coordinating institutions channels immigrants into society. Concerns about immigration and social cohesion are thus misplaced: rather, researchers and governments should focus on how to craft immigration policies that effectively incorporates immigrants and build strong institutions to ensure a type of social cohesion that does not depend on mechanical solidarity/gemeinschaft. ASSIMILATION

Rumbaut, Rubén. 1997. "Assimilation and Its Discontents: Between Rhetoric and Reality." The International Migration Review 31(4): 923-960. (38 pages)

Rumbaut (1997) empirically tests straight-line assimilation, the idea that assimilation as a linear process leading to improvements in immigrant outcomes over time and generations in the US. Findings from recent research and his own work show that although linguistic assimilation occurs rapidly and linearly, there are other paradoxes that show how straight-line assimilation does not apply to post 1965 immigration. There is not universal improvement over time for various indicators.The infant health paradox says that immigrants from worse socioeconomic backgrounds have better infant health. Second generation youth have poorer health outcomes and are more prone to engage in risk behavior than the first generation - the longer time in and exposure to the US, the worse their health and risk behavior became. Children of the first generation consistently outperform natives and later generations, and the longer time in the US leads to higher group identity with home country. ASSIMILATION

Waldinger, Roger. 2007. "Did Manufacturing Matter? The Experience of Yesterday's Second Generation: A Reassessment." International Migration Review 41(1): 3-39. (37 pages)

Waldinger (2007) examines the economic differences separating second-generation immigrants from their third-generation-plus counterparts. He argues that neither standard nor segmented assimilation approaches convey an accurate picture of the trajectory or mechanisms by which the last second generation has succeeded. Manufacturing may have mattered, but it was far from all-important. While the second-generation Polish immigrants converged on manufacturing, their more numerous Italian counterparts made a living in other ways, showing no propensity for industrial work. The compressed wage structure in the manufacturing sector - high wages for low skills - meant there was less overall income inequality in the U.S. However, along with the positive features of manufacturing also came its negative aspects, including decreasing the occupational prestige of Polish immigrants, which negatively affected their group position. He argues that job sector and region mattered more for economic mobility in contrast to ethnicity. We can't predict what will happen to the current generation without manufacturing jobs. ASSIMILATION

Waters, Mary C., Van C. Tran, Philip Kasinitz, and John H. Mollenkopf. 2010. "Segmented assimilation revisited: Types of acculturation and socioeconomic mobility in young adulthood." Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(7): 1168-1193. (26 pages)

Waters et al. empirically test the three paths proposed by Portes and Zhou in segmented assimilation. Dissonant refers to downward assimilation, consonant to traditional upward assimilation, and selective to upward mobility through maintained ethnicity. Using their ISGMNY survey they use a dummy variable to code which group each respondent belongs to, based on their knowledge of English and their knowledge of their parents' language. The first major finding is that for all groups dissonant acculturation is the least common category and selective is the most. They then present a series of logistic regressions on negative outcomes, such as dropping out of high school, being unemployed, or being incarcerated. In all models for all outcomes they find no significant impact of acculturation type, net of other sociodemographic characteristics. This questions the segmented assimilation model wherein acculturation path is the key causal mechanism predicting assimilation. Method: Logistic regressions based on ISGMNY survey data. ASSIMILATION

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1999. "Matters of State: Theorizing Immigration Policy" Pp. 71-93 in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz and Josh DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (23 pages)

Zolberg (1999) argues that state's exhibit significant strength in their control over international migration. He critiques the work of Massey and others on the "Committee on South-North Migration of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Populations" for treating state regulations as atheoretical, noting that 1) they don't discuss how "legal" and "illegal" categories are defined and change over time, and 2) their account of individual's decision-making process does not consider the obstacles individuals might face to exit, instead presuming a universal freedom to exit. Zolberg rejects the standard null hypothesis that "state regulations regarding exit and entry do not significantly shape international migration" (73). Regarding emigration, it is clear the prohibitions regarding exit can be highly effective (e.g., Russia, Germany). Regarding immigration, the null hypothesis is clearly false with respect to immigration into the U.S. from noncontiguous countries. For example, he describes an elaborate system of "remote control" beginning in 1924, regulating embarkation at or near the point of origin. This system required all foreign nationals seeking entry into the U.S. from overseas to produce an entry visa prior to boarding an entry vessel, which required that they be screened by U.S. personnel abroad. Therefore, entry and exit is controlled by a political process. While the immigration flows from Mexico to the U.S. may seem like a deviant example, Zolberg argues that there is a purposefully weak regulatory system to satisfy powerful economic interests. In other words, the state can control immigration, but does it want to? What may look like a failure to control immigration may actually reflect an ambivalence about whether the state really wants to control immigration. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Zolberg, Aristide R., and Long Litt Woon. 1999. "Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural Incorporation in Europe and the United States." Politics & Society 27(1): 5-38. (34 pages)

Zolberg and Woon (1999) analyze the similarities between the experiences of Muslims living in Europe and Spanish-speaking peoples in the United States. They argue that both share contentious relationships with the host population of each area, and that the process of incorporation via the negotiation of these relationships requires an adjustment of social and cultural boundaries. They identify three types of boundary adjustments done by both immigrants and hosts: 1) boundary crossing by acquiring characteristics of those on the other side (e.g., replacing native tongue with host language, religious conversion, naturalization); 2) boundary blurring to allow individuals to have multiple identities (e.g., public bilingualism, dual nationality); and 3) boundary shifting, which involves a reconstruction of a group's identity where the line that differentiates members form nonmembers is relocated (either including or excluding them). The authors highlight that in the modern age, complete multiculturalism or complete assimilation is unlikely, as most societies will fall somewhere in between depending on these boundaries. COMPARISONS WITH EUROPE