Factors That Shape Views on Immigration

Running head: THE DETERMINANTS OF IMMIGRATION OPINION 1
The Determinants of Immigration Opinion:
An Exploration
Mackenzie Davies
John Carroll University
Author Note:
This paper was done for John Carroll University’s PO 300 Research Methods
class, a course requirement for the graduation of all political science majors. All
research and writing was completed in Fall 2015 under the guidance of Dr.
Elizabeth Stiles.

THE DETERMINANTS OF IMMIGRATION OPINION 2
Abstract
Public opinion regarding United States immigration has become more and more polarized over
recent decades. The reasons and roots behind an individual’s political stances have a variety of
dimensions including, but not limited to, income, education, race, age, and gender. After studying
the current literature on the topic of immigration opinion, hypotheses were drafted in order to find
out if there is a direct relationship between religious practices, income, and education and an
individual’s attitude towards illegal immigrants and immigration policy. The data used comes
from the 2008 American National Election Survey. Results from the study on immigration opinion
produced several statistically significant though weak relationships between the independent
determinant variables and the dependent variables of opinion and attitudes.
Introduction
Immigration reform and illegal immigrants have been a topic of hot debate in the current-
day United States. Regardless of education level, income, race, gender, religion, etc., almost
everyone has an opinion regarding border control and citizenship in addition to holding
predetermined perceptions of illegal immigrants. As a country founded by immigrants and
progressed by their lineage, the steady flow of new people coming to America has not changed,
but the principal homeland of the people seeking economic opportunity and basic freedoms has.
Past waves of immigrants have been historically European, traveling across the seas from
Italy, Germany, Ireland, Russia, and Poland, and the United Kingdom. The new wave of
immigrant people come from a different region and cultures than before, with the majority of
illegal immigrants traveling across the United States border from Central America, primarily
from their homes in Mexico. Consequently, a demographic shift has started to occur within
American borders so much so that the Pew Research Center (2015) predicts there will be no
racial or ethnic majority group of the United States’ population by the year 2065.
Under these conditions of change, it is important to understand how the American
public’s opinions and attitudes regarding immigration are influenced. Although there is current
research that aims to link plausible determinants to different facets of immigration opinion, there
are few studies that take an empirical approach in testing determinants such as education level,

religion, and wealth. The current literature lacks a connection between empirical observations
and theoretical approaches, a necessary component of interpreting data produced in studies of
immigration attitudes and opinion. This lack of research leaves a pertinent question for policy
makers and other organizations in charge of forming immigration policy and national initiatives
pertaining to illegal immigrants in the near future: What kinds of factors influence contemporary
American attitudes and opinions regarding illegal immigrants and immigration policy?
A Review of Existing Literature
The majority of research analyzing immigration opinion tests theoretical knowledge from
past scholars. Few works review or analyze from an empirical perspective though many studies
could test various empirical observations regarding the determinants of immigration opinion.
Nevertheless, a review of theoretical approaches is formative in understanding the roots of
opinion and attitudes having to do with immigration and immigrants, especially within the
United States. Current research is largely based in sociological theory that seek to understand
behavioral attitudes on the individual level while considering characteristics such as race, age,
education level, and religion. Other fields draw connections between public policy opinions with
correlating economic trends and social trends.
A leading researcher in current public opinion regarding immigration Berg (2009, 2010,
2015) takes a comprehensive approach in testing various theoretical perspectives. In one study,
Berg (2009) analyzed whites’ attitudes towards immigrants and immigration policy. The basis
for his research was rooted in the two theoretical perspectives, being group threat theories and
contact theory. Group threat theories hold that as an area increases in diversity, the dominant
majority group will develop a fear of losing its various forms of social, economic and political

power. Contact theory takes the opposite perspective, arguing that interaction amongst different
social groups increases positive intergroup attitudes and acceptance. Berg looks at core social
networks of whites, testing how the group’s composition has an effect on the dependent variable,
individual attitudes towards immigrants and immigration policy. It is important to note that, in
this context, the term ‘core network’ refers to the main social group to which an individual
belongs and regularly socializes with. The independent variables included in the analysis are the
size, ethnoracial diversity, education, age, and closeness of core networks. The multilevel
modeling approach Berg uses in this study reveals the negative affect network age has on
immigration attitudes while network education, the average education level of one’s core
network has a positive effect of immigration attitudes. Overall, Berg concludes, “regarding
whites’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy, it appears that core networks have a
statistically significant influence” (p. 28). The findings from this study provide a wider look at
the determinants of immigration attitudes.
In a comprehensive overview of five theoretical categories regarding immigration
attitudes, Berg (2015) reviews theoretical literature pertaining to the main theoretical categories,
listed as follows: Personal and social identity, self and group interest, cultural values and beliefs,
social interaction, and multilevel theories. Multilevel theories are the most pertinent to the
proposed research question at hand. The multilevel theory of intersectionality rests on three
primary tenets: Race, gender, and class are social constructions which influence personal
identities and interactions; they are also institutionalized and thereby connect to power relations
and oppression of groups of people; they are not independent dimensions of the stratification
system but rather interactive dimensions. An example of this is demonstrated in his findings

from a recent study, being that education levels are more likely to liberalize immigration
attitudes of whites than immigration attitudes of black counterparts (Berg, 2010).
Ceobanu and Escandell (2011) acknowledge that there are two types of attitudes that
appear in the majority of investigative studies on immigration opinions. Defined as “broad types
of such public views,” the two categories are identified as “attitudes toward immigrants and
attitudes toward immigration” (p. 313). In a comparative analysis of theories and research,
Ceobanu and Escandell found three popular micro-sociological lenses are commonly used in
individual-level studies. The perspectives are as follows: “socioeconomic correlates and self-
interests, identities and values, and contact with out-group members” (p. 317). While all three
explanations are used in such research there is a lack of studies that seek to study plausible
intersectionality of the three perspectives; such as how socioeconomic factors or how identity
and values characteristic to various religions, for example, may have an impact on the amount of
meaningful contact one has with people outside of their immediate social group—all of which
could indirectly effect immigration opinion and attitudes due to the connected nature of all three
facets.
In contrast to the theoretical perspective approach popular in the field of opinion studies,
Mayda (2006) analyzes the economic and non-economic determinants of individual attitudes
towards immigrants. Interestingly, the empirical approach used by Mayda shows strong
consistencies with the theoretical socioeconomic correlates and self-interest perspective
identified by Ceobanu and Escandell. Mayda’s findings support labor-market hypotheses that
claim higher incomes correlate with more negative attitudes towards immigration. Other studies
however show mixed data on the relationship between economics and immigration attitudes. A
study done by Espenshade and Hemphill (1996) shows that those with a more positive view of

the economy demonstrate warmer acceptance of immigrants than those with a pessimistic
outlook on the economy. Scheve and Slaughter (2001) demonstrate a similar correlation, with
occupation wage and education years being strongly significant in predicting support for
immigration restrictions.
Aside from a solely economic study, Espenshade and Hemphill (1996) provide a well-
rounded analysis of the determinants of immigration attitudes and acceptance within the United
States. Results of the study indicated that education and income both show a positive association
with desired levels of immigration into the United States (p. 547). The outcome of age’s affect
on desired levels of immigration showed no significant relationship (p. 549). The legitimacy of
this conclusion is limited, however, as the study separates age into only two broad categorical
levels.
Several works of literature take a racial approach to analyzing immigration attitudes. A
study done by Ayers, Hofstetter, Schnakenberg, and Kolody (2009) analyzes Anglos’ prejudice
or bias towards Latinos and its relationship to desired immigration policies. Much of their
findings were consistent with group threat theories. Many scholars, including Harwood (1985),
have found that Hispanics are much more likely to exhibit pro-immigrant attitudes than non-
Hispanics, plausibly because much of the immigration debate surround this group.
Knoll (2009) explores immigration reform as a perceivably moral issue for the American
public. Previous studies have shown that religious beliefs of an individual play a formative role
in their development of political ideology and worldviews (Feldman 1988). Knoll tests this
knowledge with his first hypothesis; “Mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants, and
Catholics are more likely to support liberal immigration policies than those with other affiliation

or those with no religious affiliation” (p. 316). This lens of religious tradition as an indicator of
political behavior can be referred to as ethnoreligous perspective.
Knoll also tests the religious restructuralism perspective, holding that an individual’s
religious behavior and commitment is what predicts political ideology rather than religious
tradition. The religious restructuralism perspective serves as the basis for Knoll’s second
hypothesis: “Mainline protestants, evangelical Protestants, and Catholics who attend religious
services more frequently are more likely to support liberal immigration reform policies than
those who attend less frequently” (p. 317). This is another example of an interactive relationship
similar to results produced in studies done by Berg. The third hypothesis tested by Knoll is
rooted in the religious marginalization perspective, being, “Members of minority religions,
specifically Jews, Latter-day Saints, and “other” are more likely to support liberal immigration
reform policies than those with other religious affiliations” (p. 318). The religious
marginalization perspective sees religious minority groups as having empathy for other minority
groups within society. This theory is supported by numerous scholars, including Fetzer (1998,
2000) whose studies indicate that pro-immigrant policy is likely to be supported by both ethnic
and religious minorities in the United States as well as among various other countries. Knoll
(2009) tested the hypotheses through multivariate analysis at the individual level of data found in
the Pew Research Center’s “2006 Immigration Survey.” The data showed little statistical
significance for the ethnoreligous hypothesis but supported both the religious restructuralism and
religious marginalization hypotheses.
Pertinent literature and past studies on the topic of immigration opinion and, less
specifically, the determinants of political ideology show to have strong theoretical foundations.
The correlation between individual level determinants and immigration opinion has been noted

in the current literature, though more research needs to be done to show consistent significance
for a variety of independent variables and the dependent variables of attitudes towards
immigrants and immigration policy. Few studies have sought to explore the direct relationship,
if any, between religion and immigration opinion from either theoretical or empirical approaches.
Additionally, the literature does not exhibit a clear consensus regarding possible correlations
between socioeconomic and immigration attitudes. Through my understanding of current
literature, I can hypothesize that independent variables such as socioeconomic status, age, race,
education and religion all have a determining effect on the dependent variables of immigration
attitudes and opinion at hand.
Theories & Hypotheses
Immigration has long been a controversial topic for American politics that shows a
divisive array of public opinions. The highly polarizing debate has prompted many researchers
to conduct surveys with the aim of measuring respondents’ feelings towards different facets of
illegal immigration in the United States. This paper will test different hypotheses regarding the
determinants of immigration attitudes. The first two hypotheses were formed in parallel to the
religious restructuralism perspective, a theory that holds one’s level of religious dedication and
involvement is reflected in individual’s political ideology, though were rooted in initial empirical
observation:
H1: In a comparison of individuals, those who frequently attend religious services will
be more likely to have a favorable opinion of illegal immigrants than those who
attend religious services less frequently.
H2: In a comparison of individuals, those who pray more frequently will be more
likely to have a favorable opinion of illegal immigrants than those who pray less
frequently.

The second relationship to be tested is an individual’s income and their support or lack thereof
for a three-year work period for illegal immigrants. Based on my understanding of past research
done by Scheve and Slaughter (2001) and the labor-market perspective as well as real world
observations, my third hypothesis is as follows:
H3: In a comparison of individuals, those with higher incomes will be less likely to
favor a three-year work period for illegal immigrants than those with lower
incomes.
The final relationship analyzed in this study is the effect an individual’s education level has on
one’s opinion of immigration policies. Past empirical studies have found a positive relationship
between education levels and support for liberal immigration policies. The fourth and final
hypothesis was formed in consistency with past research and personal academic experience:
H4: In a comparison of individuals, those with higher education levels will be more
likely to support finding a citizenship process for illegal immigrants than those
with lower education levels.
Methodology & Data
The data used in this analysis comes from the 2008 American National Election Study
(NES 2008). This dataset provides several operational variables for studying different facets of
immigration attitudes and opinions in the United States. Due to the ordinal nature of the data,
frequency charts, cross tabulations, controlled comparisons, Somer’s d and chi-square tests of
significance are used as the methods of analysis in this study. The dependent variables are level
of support for a citizenship process for illegal immigrants, level of support or lack thereof for a
three year work period for illegal immigrants, and feelings towards illegal immigrants. The
independent variables are income, frequency of prayer, level of religious attendance, and
education. Ideology will serve as the control variable.

Variables
In order to properly test both the first and second hypotheses, it was necessary for the
dependent variable, illegals_therm, to be recoded to illegals_therm3. Instead of measuring the
respondent’s feeling towards illegal immigrants on a 100 point scale, illegals_therm3 measures
the levels of attitude in three categories: unfavorable, coded “1”; neutral, coded “2”; and
favorable, coded “3”. The independent variable for H1 is relig_attend. It ranks religious
frequency of attendance to religious services on a scale of 1 to 5: every week, coded “1”; almost
every week, coded “2”; once or twice a month, coded “3”; a few times a year, coded “4”; never,
coded “5”. The independent variable for H2 is relig_pray. Relig_pray measures how often the
respondent prays on a scale of 1 to 5, the possibilities are as follows: several times a day, coded
“1”; once a day, coded “2”; a few times a week, coded “3”; once a week or less, coded “4”;
never, coded “5”.
The dependent variable tested in the third hypothesis measures the respondents’ support
of policy regarding a three-year work period for illegal immigrants in the United States. It can
be found in the dataset as illegal_wrk, measuring opinions on a seven-point scale: favor a great
deal, coded “1”; favor moderately, coded “2”; favor a little, coded “3”; neither favor nor oppose,
coded “4”; oppose a little, coded “5”; oppose moderately, coded “6”; oppose a great deal, coded
“7”. The independent variable used to test H3 is income_r3 measures the income of the
respondent using three categories: low, coded “1”; middle, coded “2”; and high, coded “3”.
The variable illegal_citizenship_r serves as the dependent variable in the fourth
hypothesis. It measures the respondents’ support of a path of citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Like the dependent variable in H3, it uses the same seven-point scale: favor a great deal, coded
“1”; favor moderately, coded “2”; favor a little, coded “3”; neither favor nor oppose, coded “4”;

oppose a little, coded “5”; oppose moderately, coded “6”; oppose a great deal, coded “7”. The
independent variable used to test H4 is educ_r2, which separates level of completed education
into two categories: high school or less and any formal education beyond high school.
Analysis & Interpretation
To determine if there was a relationship between the variables in the first hypotheses, a
cross-tabular analysis was run. A restatement of the first hypothesis and a summary of findings
can be found below:
H1: In a comparison of individuals, those who frequently attend religious services will
be more likely have a favorable opinion of illegal immigrants than those who
attend religious services less frequently.
Table 1: Effect of Religious Attendance on Attitudes Towards Illegal Immigrants
It is not immediately clear if there is a positive relationship between attendance of religious
services and opinion of illegal immigrants though those who have middle and high level of
attendance do show a more favorable attitude than those with low levels of attendance. The data
indicates that 27.3% of those with high levels of religious attendance show favorable attitudes
towards illegal immigrants as opposed the 21.7% of favorable attitudes in those with low levels
of religious attendance. However, this apparent relationship could be an artifact of sampling
error. To measure the significance of the relationship a chi-square test was included in the data
TABLE 1 Level of attendance to religious services
Low Middle High Tota1
Attitude
Towards
Illegal
Immigrants
TABLE 1
(con’t.)
Unfavorable 58.8%
(634)
51.5%
(152)
52.1%
(364)
55.5%
(1150)
Neutral 19.6%
(211)
20.0%
(59)
20.6%
(144)
20.0%
(414)
Favorable 21.7%
(234)
28.5%
(84)
27.3%
(191)
24.6%
(509)
Total 100.0%
(1079)
100.0%
(295)
100.0%
(699)
100.0%
(2073)
Chi-Square: 12.260 P-value: .016 Somers’ D: -.064

analysis. If the null hypothesis is correct, from the population that the sample was drawn there
will be no relationship between those who frequently attend church service and those who hold
favorable opinions of illegal immigrants and random sampling error will produce a chi-square
value of 12.260 only 1.6% of the time. Using the standard measure of .05 we are able to reject
the null hypothesis, therefore the relationship is significant. The absolute value of somers’d,
being 0.064, indicates a very weak, and therefore insignificant, relationship frequency of
attendance at religious services and attitudes held towards illegal immigrants.
A cross-tabular analysis was also used to test the second hypothesis. A restatement of H2
and a summary of findings can be found below:
H2: In a comparison of individuals, those who pray more frequently will be more
likely to have a favorable opinion of illegal immigrants than those who pray less
frequently.
Table 2: Effect of Prayer on Attitudes Toward Illegal Immigrants
TABLE 2 How often does R pray?
Not Frequently Frequently Tota1
Attitude
Towards
Illegal
Immigrants
Unfavorable 57.5%
(558)
53.8%
(588)
55.6%
(1146)
Neutral 20.8%
(202)
19.2%
(210)
20.0%
(412)
Favorable 21.7%
(211)
26.9%
(294)
24.5%
(505)
Total 100.0%
(971)
100.0%
(1092)
100.0%
(2063)
Chi-Square: 7.511 P-value: .023 Somers’ d: .050
The cross-tabular analysis for this hypothesis does show a positive relationship between the
independent variable and the dependent variable. Those who pray more frequently have 5.2% of
an increase in favorable attitudes toward immigrants than those who do not pray as often. Under
the assumption that the null hypothesis is correct, in the population from which the sample was
drawn, there is no relationship between those who frequently pray and those who hold favorable
opinions of illegal immigrants, then random sampling error will produce the chi-square value of

7.511 a mere 2.3% of the time. Again, with the benchmark of .05 in mind, we can reject the null
hypothesis. The somers’d indicates that knowing frequency of prayer enables us to improve our
prediction of attitudes towards illegal immigrants roughly 5% percent by knowing the
independent variable of prayer frequency.
A restatement and analysis by crosstabs and chi square analysis of the third hypothesis
follows:
H3: In comparison of individuals, those with higher incomes will be less likely to
favor a three-year work period for illegal immigrants than those with lower
incomes.
Table 3: Effect of Income on Immigrant Work Period Opinion
TABLE 3 Respondents’ Income
TotalLow Middle High
Favor/Oppose
3-year work
period for
United States’
illegal
immigrants
Favor a great
deal
10.7%
(42)
11.8%
(37)
8.5%
(30)
10.3%
(109)
Favor
moderately
8.4%
(33)
9.6%
(30)
14.5%
(51)
10.4%
(114)
Favor a little 4.1%
(16)
3.5%
(11)
2.0%
(7)
3.2%
(34)
Neither favor
nor oppose
21.1%
(83)
17.2%
(54)
17.6%
(62)
18.8%
(199)
Oppose a
little
4.1%
(16)
3.5%
(11)
1.7%
(6)
3.1%
(33)
Oppose
moderately
12.9%
(51)
13.7%
(43)
13.9%
(49)
13.5%
(143)
Oppose a
great deal
38.8%
(153)
40.8%
(128)
41.8%
(147)
40.4%
(428)
Total 100.0%
(394)
100.0%
(314)
100.0%
(352)
100.0%
(1060)
Chi-Square: 17.332 P-value: .138 Somers’ d: .014
The relationship between income level and support of a three-year work period for illegal
immigrants demonstrates a negative correlation between the independent and dependent
variables as Hypothesis 3 predicted. Only 8.5% of high-income individuals were shown to
greatly favor a work period for illegal immigrants as opposed to their middle and low-income
counterparts, respectively showing 11.8% and 10.7% to favor the proposed immigrant work

period a great deal. Given the p-value of .138, though, the null hypothesis would produce the
observed chi-square value of 17.332 nearly 14% of the time, therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted.
The final hypothesis was tested using the same methods as the three preceding. A
summary of the findings is found below:
H4: In a comparison of individuals, those with higher education levels will be more
likely to support finding a citizenship process for illegal immigrants than those
with lower education levels.
Table 4: Effect of Education on Citizenship Policy Opinions
TABLE 4 Level of completed education by R
TotalHigh School or Less Beyond High School
Favor/Oppose
a path to
citizenship
for United
States’ illegal
immigrants
Favor a great
deal
23.1%
(84)
23.6%
(135)
23.4%
(219)
Favor
moderately
21.5%
(78)
32.3%
(185)
28.1%
(263)
Favor a little 8.5%
(31)
6.5%
(37)
7.3%
(68)
Oppose a
little
3.3%
(12)
2.3%
(13)
2.7%
(25)
Oppose a
moderately
7.7%
(28)
10.6%
(61)
9.5%
(89)
Oppose a
great deal
35.8%
(130)
24.8%
(142)
29.1%
(272)
Total 100.0%
(363)
100.0%
(573)
100.0%
(936)
Chi-Square: 22.775 P-value: .000 Somers’ d: -.103
The data analysis of education and opinion regarding a path to citizenship supports
Hypothesis 4. Taking into account all three various levels of favoring citizenship for illegal
immigrants, 53.1% of those who obtained a high school or less education level supported
citizenship initiatives as opposed to the greater 62.4% support from those who completed
education beyond high school. Furthermore, the data shows that those with less education to
greatly oppose citizenship pathways 11% than those with higher education. Under the
assumption that the null hypothesis is correct, a chi-square test statistic of 22.775 would be found

nearly zero percent of the time, which enables us to reject the null. The somers’d indicates that
knowing education level enables us to improve our prediction of opinions regarding a path to
citizenship 10.3 percent by knowing the independent variable of education level.
Conclusions
Tests for Hypothesis 1, 2 and 4 each supported their respective hypothesis with
statistically significant results though seemingly weak relationships between the independent and
dependent variables. The third hypothesis, however, was not supported by the data analysis that
sought to draw a connection between income level and support of an immigrant work period.
Possible reasoning for this could be xenophobic attitudes, or, while people may not support a
work period for illegal immigrants, they rather advocate for a more inclusive citizenship process.
If this were the case, there instead may be a plausible relationship between income level and
one’s support of a pathway to citizenship.
Consistent with the religiosity theory proposed by Knoll (2009), the results from testing
H1 and H2 showed statistically significant but weak relationships between both frequencies of
prayer and levels of religious attendance in correlation to one’s attitude towards illegal
immigrants. The strongest relationship demonstrated by the study was between education level
and support of a citizenship process for illegal immigrants after testing the empirical observation
of H4—a seemingly curious coincidence considering the majority of previous research and
literature in the area of immigration opinion has been rooted in theoretical frameworks.
As the data analysis showed statistically significant relationships between the
independent variables of prayer, religious attendance, and education, stronger relationships might
be shown if control variables were inserted into the analysis. Controlling for characteristics such

as age, race, gender, political ideology, or specific religion contain the possibility of unveiling
spurious relationships between each of the variables tested in the first, second, and fourth
hypothesis.
Though drawing confident conclusions regarding the determinants of immigration
opinion would be premature after reviewing the results of this study, the importance of
continuing research in this area should not be undermined. Given that immigration debate has
maintained its hot seat on the American political stage, public opinion research specific to illegal
immigration and immigrants has become increasingly important as the face of America continues
to change in big ways. Understanding public attitudes on illegal immigration and immigrants
has become a pertinent facet to drafting successful policies and cultural initiatives for the future.
Careful research studies have the responsibility of advising American politicians, think tanks and
cultural organization so that the country can best move forward as the United States population
continues its significant demographic shift throughout the coming decades.

Running head: THE DETERMINANTS OF IMMIGRATION OPINION 17
References
Berg, J.A. (2009). Core Networks and Whites’ Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration
Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1): 7-31. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548060.
Berg J.A. (2015). Explaining Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: A Review of
the Theoretical Literature. Sociology Compass, 9 (1): 23–34. Retrieved from
10.1111/soc4.12235.
Berg, J.A. (2010). Race, Class, Gender, and Social Space: Using an Intersectional Approach to
Study Immigration Attitudes. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(2): 278-302. Retrieved from
10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01172.x.
Ceobanu, A.M. & Escandell, X. (2011). Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward
Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories and
Research. Annual Review of Sociology 36(1): 309-328. Retrieved from
10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.10265.
Cohn, D. (2015). Future immigration will change the face of America by 2065. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from http://pewrsr.ch/1Lbkz0o
Espenshade, T.J. & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American Attitudes Toward U.S.
Immigration. International Migration Review 30(2): 535-570. Retrieved from
Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and
Values. American Journal of Political Science 32(2): 416-440. Retrieved from
Fetzer, J.S. (1998). Religious Minorities and Support for Immigrant Rights in the United States,
France, and Germany. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37(1): 5-23. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388028.
Fetzer, J.S. (2000). Economic Self-Interest or Cultural Marginality? Anti-Immigration Sentiment
and Nativist Political Movements in France, Germany, and the USA. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 26(1): 5-23. Retrieved from 10.1080/136918300115615.
Harwood, E. (1985). How Should We Enforce Immigration Law? The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 487(1): 201-212. Retrieved from
10.1177/0002716286487001013.
Knoll, B.R. (2009). “And Who Is My Neighbor?” Religion and Immigration Policy Attitudes.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(2): 313-331. Retrieved from 10.1111/j.1468-
5906.2009.01449.x.

Mayda, A.M. (2006). Who Is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of Individual
Attitudes toward Immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(3): 510-30.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40043013.
Pew Research Team. (2015). Unauthorized Immigrants: Who they are and what the public
thinks. The Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-
points/immigration/.
Scheve, K.F. & Slaughter, M.J. (2001). Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences
over Immigration Policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83(1): 133-145.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646696.

Factors That Shape Views on Immigration

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Factors That Shape Views on Immigration

Similar to Factors That Shape Views on Immigration (20)

Factors That Shape Views on Immigration