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

Abstract

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

The “ironic” fair process effect: A perceived fair naturalization procedure spurs anti-immigration attitudes through increased host national identification among naturalized citizens

“…Despite being anecdotal evidence, the latter quote illustrates a quite peculiar social phenomenon: Naturalized citizens (i.e., immigrant minority members who accomplished a process of individual upward mobility through citizenship acquisition) may stand back from the immigrant minority group and advocate for stricter immigration policies (e.g., Kolbe & Crepaz, 2016;Politi, Chipeaux, Lorenzi-Cioldi, & Staerklé, 2020;Sarrasin, Green, Bolzman, Visintin, & Politi, 2018;Strijbis & Polavieja, 2018). Innovatively, the present contribution aims to understand which underlying mechanisms lead mobile individuals (i.e., naturalized citizens) to turn against their former ingroup (i.e., the immigrant minority group).…”

If you want to be one of us, then become like us: The evaluation of naturalization applicants by host nationals

“…The general backlash of multicultural policies, intertwined with the concurrent rise of neoliberal communitarian ideologies, fosters shared representations of citizenship in which assimilation becomes de facto prescriptive. Naturalization offices and institutions accompanying naturalization applicants throughout their integration process should be made aware of risks and possible drawbacks that this implicit assimilation pressure represents for the incorporation of naturalized citizens (Politi, Chipeaux, Lorenzi‐Cioldi, & Staerklé, ). Although legal inclusion in the national majority group may not be formally related to the level of heritage culture maintenance of naturalization applicants (but see Andreouli & Dashtipour, ), host nationals are very skeptical about any marker of cultural difference expressed by candidates from devalued countries, thereby jeopardizing their social inclusion and acceptance (Politi, Green, Lueders, & Staerklé, ).…”

Non-citizen voting rights and political participation of citizens: evidence from Switzerland

“…Nevertheless, we sustain that NCV rights might result in increased political participation of citizens with immigration backgrounds because their immigration experience renders such policies more important to them than natives. While extant empirical work is divided between whether citizens with immigration backgrounds hold preferences in solidarity with new immigrants or whether they align more closely with native citizens (Strijbis and Polavieja, 2018;Politi et al, 2020;Manatschal et al, 2020), when it comes to the increased political influence of non-citizen groups, there is considerable evidence pointing to the conclusion that the citizens with immigration backgrounds have less of a reason to hold grievances when it comes to non-citizen enfranchisement. Importantly, most evidence in the literature had looked at such preferences of the citizens with immigration backgrounds on sharing social rights with non-citizens (Kolbe and Crepaz, 2016) and, even more so, towards their preferences on immigration policy (Strijbis and Polavieja, 2018).…”

“…Second, we look at the citizens in two so-called 'voter blocks', distinguishing between natives and citizens with immigration backgrounds (Bergh and Bjorklund, 2011). This is because citizens with an immigration background carry both an inherited minority group identity and an acquired attachment to the majority group and have access to political rights and other privileges through their citizenship status, making them distinct from both native citizens and non-citizen immigrants (Schlenker, 2016;Strijbis and Polavieja, 2018;Politi et al, 2020). We posit that citizens with an immigration background will be especially activated by this turnout boost due to NCV rights policies, arguing that such enfranchisement dynamics raise the salience of the topic of immigrant political influence and representation at the local level.…”