Variance in U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Political Participation

• In Event: Authorized and (Un)Recognized: Non-citizens and the Undocumented

Abstract

Do hostile U.S. federal and state immigration policies increase immigrant political participation? Punitive immigration laws perceived to target immigrant groups in the United States have been found to increase naturalization rates, voter turnout, and participation in protests. However, U.S. immigration policy unevenly distributes certain benefits and protections often based on nationality. Furthermore, states are increasingly passing laws that have immediate impacts on immigrants’ quality of life. Some states have adopted more hostile policies, such as universal employment verification. Others have adopted more inclusive laws, such as expanding access to higher education and healthcare. National groups will have different experiences with immigration policy dependent upon not only their federal eligibility, but also the state they live in. This creates a unique policy landscape that prior work has not examined simultaneously. This paper applies the coding methods of Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) to score federal and state level immigration policies on a hostile-inclusive index. Using data from the Collaborative Multiracial Postelection Survey (CMPS) in 2016 and 2020, I then test whether citizen and non-citizen political participation are influenced by the variance in federal and state immigration policy hostility.

Author

• Taylor Noel Trummel, UC Santa Barbara