Globalization has had its impact on the global market but it has also had an impact on people. More often than not, the public is more open to international trade but when it comes to the flow of immigrants, they seem to be more skeptic. Especially in more developed democracies, a diverse immigrant minority has become a fact of life. Diversity among ethnicity, race and gender within these countries has not always led to peace. I will be discussing attitudes towards immigration and what shapes them, not only within a certain country or continent (even though I will mention examples within countries and continents), because “citizens everywhere worry about the integration of immigrants” (Citrin and Sides 2008, 51). Many cultural and economic conflicts have occurred as a result of different groups clashing. Some individuals fear immigrants will take their job or reap government benefits and pay lower taxes. Some believe immigrants will completely change the identity of a host country and ruin its reputation. Some individuals see immigrants as dangerous people trying to disrupt peace and order. Some individuals see immigration as a natural phenomenon of globalization which brings more prosperity alongside a richer culture, however. As you can see, opinions on immigration vary across people both culturally and economically, therefore is important to study and analyze its effects. If political scientists can learn how the public thinks about immigration then policymakers can develop successful immigration policies and possibly frame the issue more accurately.

There has been extensive research done on what shapes citizens’ attitudes of immigration and they seem to be grounded under two umbrellas, culture and economics. I will be comparing the authors within each section, across the sections and analyzing what is left to research. More specifically, I will be looking at what economic motivations exist to favor or oppose immigration and how a nation’s culture and identity impact citizens’ views on immigration.

How Economics Impact Views on Immigration

Advocates of more restrictive immigration policies believe immigrants disturb the environment of native workers in the labor market and cost the government services they do not always pay for in taxes (Citrin, Green, Muste, Wong 1997, 858). Other scholars argue this is not the whole picture, however. Immigrants must be examined through various dimensions to predict their impact on the labor market. For example, both highly skilled and low-skilled native workers prefer immigrants to be highly skilled over low-skilled, regardless of the natives’ skill level, according to Hainmeuller and Hiscox (2010). But overall, skilled individuals are more likely to be pro-immigration when the skill level of natives is higher than the average immigrant (Mayda 2006). Mayda (2006, 526) found opinions about immigration is significantly correlated with the skill level of an immigrant but there does exist cross country variation. As you can see, many authors look at the relativity of immigrants’ skill level to that of the natives. Low skilled immigrants are not as favored as high skilled immigrants but poor immigrants are even more clashing. Natives see poor immigrants as people who will lead to overcrowding of public services and build on the already existing poor native population (Hainmueller and Hiscox 2010, 79). Not all the authors believe labor market competition is a significant driver in anti-immigrant sentiment. Hainmueller and Hiscox (2010) found education level of an immigrant was more influential than his or her skill level. The two can be positively related, however. Traditionally, education usually means a higher racial tolerance and a stronger preference for cultural diversity, therefore a pro-immigrant sentiment.

Per capita GDP is also a significant factor is determining attitudes of immigration according to Mayda (2006). She found the skill composition of natives relative to immigrants is positively correlated with pro-immigration sentiments in countries with higher per capita GDP, and negatively correlated in lower per capita GDP countries. Meaning rich countries are more likely to receive immigrants who are less skilled than natives and vice versa. This makes complete sense because many immigrants leave their home country to go somewhere economically stronger to reach a higher standard of living. Also, the current occupation of a native resident can impact his or her opinion of immigration. Individuals who work with more immigrants or foreigners (a higher ratio of immigrants to natives) are less likely to be pro-immigration (Mayda 2006). People who work with immigrants more often than others are more likely to experience language and cultural barriers which I will describe in more detail later. Mayda (2006) also found noneconomic factors did not seem to alter significantly the views of immigration on economic explanations. Meaning, economic motivations were more significant than cultural ones.

When economic downturns happen, politicians and union leaders are more likely to blame foreign workers than their own constituents for the strife. When this happens, anti-immigrant sentiment increases. Even when immigration had nothing to do with the job loss of a native resident, individuals cannot see the entire implications of remote polices such as immigration so they resort to blaming something that is usually irrelevant. Economic threat posed by immigrants may only be felt in specific locales and job categories, and many times, these occupations are not included in national survey data (Citrin, Green, Muste, Wong 1997). Malhorta, Margalit, and Mo (2013) take this one step further and argue political scientists should target respondents in these immigrant-prone industries and occupations to better study the impact immigration can have. Many of these authors take into account the cultural effects of attitudes of immigration but not all of them argue cultural effects are more influential than economic ones. For example, Mayda says non-economic factors are inferior to economic ones whereas Dancygier and Donnelly (2013, 18) say “cultural and sociotropic concerns are more likely to drive opinions than labor market competition.”

The framing of economic threats of immigration is important to analyze but I will briefly discuss it here. “The public overestimates their number, favors fewer immigrants and perceives the consequences of immigration for public finance and safety as negative” (Citrin and Sides 2008, 51). Adverse economic conditions driven by increases in immigrants can also lead to cultural anxiety and differing group identifications (Citrin, Green, Muste, Wong 1997). On that note, we will now turn to which authors argue cultural effects are more powerful in shaping public attitudes of immigration than economic ones.

How Culture and Identities Impact Views on Immigration

Most people like things that are familiar to them. In this case, we find it easier to connect to someone who can speak our language, agree with our beliefs and has similar identities. “Immigrants who speak a different language, are ethnically distinct, or have different religious beliefs from the native majority may undermine natives’ sense of belonging or national identity” (Dancygier and Donnelly 2013, 18). According to Citrin and Sides (2008) language matters more than an immigrant’s skin color or ethnicity; this is the case in the United States as well as the majority of European countries. One participant in the study conducted by Newman, Hartman and Taber (2012, 639) said “being around immigrants who speak another language comes off as arrogant and rude.” The United States is one of the most linguistically homogenous nations with nearly 82% claiming to speak only English (Newman, Hartman and Taber 2012, 636). This language barrier is so prevalent in the United States, a country originally made up of immigrants with different identities and nationalities.

People might welcome immigrants and want them to thrive socially and economically but not without a cost. Citrin and Sides (2008) state 62% of Americans feel immigrants who come to live in the United States should take on the basic American culture. But, one must realize senses of identity and nationhood are constantly changing with the influx of immigrants and cultural changes among generations. Conceptions of national identity can continue to depend on immigration patterns but they can also follow political forces that paint immigrants as a threat to the nation (Wright 2011, 856). Many Americans fear their culture will be contaminated or displaced by immigrants not to mention job threats, consumption of government services and increased taxes like stated earlier.

In Europe, public opinion of immigration depends more on symbolic attitudes about the nation, its identity and misperceptions of the size of immigrant populations rather than the economic status of newcomers (Sides and Citrin 2007). Popular preferences of cultural unity are more existent in Europe than in the United States because Europe has a richer cultural diversity than of the United States. Also, the enlargement of the European Union has blurred the meaning of insiders and outsiders, further complicating what dictates a native and an immigrant (Citrin and Sides 2008, 53). It should be noted that, “Europeans do not embrace extremely anti-immigrant views, but neither are they yearning to welcome the world’s huddled masses” (Sides and Citrin, 2007, 500). Sides and Citrin (2007) agree with Dancygier and Donnelly (2013) and other scholars when they argue perceptions of cultural threats of immigration are more important to citizens then perceptions of economic threats. Note, economic factors are not ignored according to these authors, but cultural and psychological factors are more influential in determining attitudes of immigration. For example, after the September 11 attacks, the Madrid and London train bombings, the assassination of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and cartoon depictions of Muhammad in Denmark, citizens in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have feared cultural threats to the Muslim community. The ethnic and religious distinctiveness of Muslim populations have kept citizens concerned about their homegrown multiculturalism (Sides and Citrin 2007, 501) even if there is no real economic threat to these immigrants.

However, not all citizens feel these as real cultural threats. Regions with high levels of non-Western immigrants do not elicit an overall negative relationship between natives and immigrants on a cultural ground, “such negative relationships are only present among natives on the [political] right” (Karreth, Singh, Stojek 2015, 1196).

Ackermann and Ackermann (2015) realized there was plenty of literature on the cultural and economic effects of immigration and how they impact public opinion but few scientists have been able to study how the psychological makeup of citizens impacts views on immigration. These researchers looked at personality types and found people who are more open to experience and positivity are linked to support for equal opportunities for immigrants (Ackermann and Ackermann 2015, 398). An example of this would be people who are more conscientious might feel more of an obligation to meet people of different cultures, thereby decreasing prejudices and stereotypes (Ackermann and Ackermann 2015).

Future Research

As you can see, these scholars differ on which effect matters more on attitudes towards immigration. Some say “the ability to earn a substantial income and stay off the welfare rolls outweighs concerns over cultural distinctiveness and ability to assimilate” (Iyengar 2013, 660) whereas others, like Citrins, Sides, Dancygier and Donnelly argue the opposite. But many say researchers should not expand the question of which effect/threat is more influential but instead question specific factors within the present threat on citizens’ attitudes towards immigration (Malhorta, Margalit and Mo 2013, 405). I would agree, it does not seem these two differing effects are necessarily mutually exclusive and there may even be more effects voters have in mind when answering surveys or voting at the polls. As mentioned, many citizens overestimate the population of immigrants as well as the real and symbolic threats they may or may not bring so further research should be done on how individuals learn about immigration. We should examine how effective the media are in influencing public opinion and how much one’s ethnicity or religion impacts attitudes of immigration. Since the English language is heavily present in the United States and countries around the world political scientists should also consider how the language ability between natives and immigrants is a cultural versus economic concern (Hainnueller and Hopkins 2015, 546).

Lastly, since Europe has clearly become a continent of immigrants and the United States was founded by immigrants, scientists should study the impact immigrants can have on societies and how immigrants themselves feel towards immigration. I was able to find one article on this topic by Just and Anderson (2014) and they found among eighteen West European democracies, immigrants support immigration more than natives but more research should be done in this area within different countries and cultures. Immigration will always be a topic of discussion among citizens and policy makers but if we can learn what impacts certain sentiments then policy making could be more efficient and more effective. If we study how citizens learn about immigration and immigration policies then we can help eradicate misconceptions and further explain the reality and effects of immigrant movements.

References
Ackermann, Kathrin and Maya Ackermann. 2015. “The Big Five in Context: Personality, Diversity and Attitudes toward Equal Opportunities for Immigrants in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 23(3): 396-418.
Citrin, Jack and Donald P. Green, Christopher Muste, and Cara Wong. 1997. “Public Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations.” The Journal of Politics 59(3):858-881.
Citrin, Jack and John Sides. 2008. “Immigration and the Imagined Community in Europe and the United States.” Political Studies 56: 33-56.
Dancygier, Rafaela M. and Michael J. Donnelly. 2013. “Sectoral Economies, Economic Contexts, and Attitudes toward Immigration.” The Journal of Politics 75(1):17-35.
Hainmueller, Jens and Daniel J. Hopkins. (2015). “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3):529-548.
Hainmueller, Jens and Michael J. Hiscox. 2010. “Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” The American Political Science Review 104(1):61-84.
Just, Aida and Christopher J. Anderson. 2015. “Dual Allegiances? Immigrants’ Attitudes toward Immigration.” The Journal of Politics 77(1):188-201.
Iyengar, Shanto. 2013. “Do Attitudes About Immigration Predict Willingness To Admit Individual Immigrants?” Public Opinion Quarterly 77(3):641-665.

Karreth, Johannes, Shane P. Singh and Szymon M. Stojek. 2015. “Explaining Attitudes toward Immigration: The Role of Regional Context and Individual Predispositions.” West European Politics 38(6):1174-1202.
Malhorta, Neil and Yotam Margalit, Cecilia Hyunjung Mo. 2013. “Economic Explanations for Opposition to Immigration: Distinguishing between Prevalence and Conditional Impact.” American Journal of Political Science 57(2):391-410.
Mayda, Anna Maria. 2006. “Who is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of Individual Attitudes Toward Immigrants.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(3):510-530.
Newman, Benjamin J., Todd K. Hartman and Charles S. Taber. 2012. “Foreign Language Exposure, Cultural Threat, and Opposition to Immigration.” Political Psychology 33(5):635-657.
Sides, John and Jack Citrin. 2007. “European Opinion about Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests, and Information.” British Journal of Political Science 37(3):477-504.
Wright, Matthew. 2011. “Diversity and the Imagined Community: Immigrant Diversity and Conceptions of National Identity.” Political Psychology 32(5):837-862.