No abstract

This contribution investigates how cantonal norms of inclusion or exclusion, as expressed by cantonal integration policies and attitudes towards immigrants (xenophobia and right-wing voting), affect immigrants’ national identity in terms of their feelings of attachment to Switzerland. This chapter complements the emerging body of research emphasizing the relevance of studies “beyond and below” national policy frameworks by studying how cantonal integration policy affects immigrants’ national identity, which is a vital – but thus far understudied – factor contributing to social cohesion. The analyses are based on different data sources: the Migration-Mobility Survey, a dataset on cantonal integration policies, and cantonal statistics, e.g., on direct democratic vote results on immigration-related topics or right-wing voting rates. The results of our multilevel analyses show that cantonal reception contexts matter, however not directly but rather as catalysts. In line with assimilation theory, non-citizens’ feelings of attachment to Switzerland increase with time spent in Switzerland. Inclusive cantonal reception contexts and liberal cantonal integration policies in particular amplify this positive effect of years of residence on immigrants’ national identification, except in the most restrictive cantonal reception contexts.

Via naturalization procedures, immigrants have the opportunity to acquire rights and duties limited to nationals. Yet little is known about acculturative contexts and naturalization motives underlying immigrants' naturalization intentions. Employing a large sample of first‐generation immigrants in Switzerland (N = 3928) and a multilevel approach, we articulated individual acculturation strategies and cantonal integration policies to explain naturalization intentions and underlying motives. Results at the individual level showed that assimilated immigrants report the highest intentions to naturalize, followed by integrated, and lastly by separated immigrants. Motives underlying naturalization intentions also differed as a function of acculturation strategies. Whereas integrated and assimilated immigrants reported higher symbolic motives than separated immigrants, the latter reported the highest level of instrumental motives. A cross‐level interaction qualified results at the individual level. Indeed, the gap between integrated and separated immigrants was more pronounced under inclusive integration policies. Accordingly, integrated immigrants' naturalization intentions increased the more integration policies were inclusive, whereas this was not the case among assimilated and separated immigrants. Overall, our findings cast a positive light on inclusive integration policies as contextual affordances to overcome barriers to naturalization and encourage migration scholars to consider the broader political context in which immigrant acculturation is embedded.

No abstract