Naturalization in the Wake of Anti-Immigrant Legislation: Dominicans in New York City

CIAO DATE: 4/00

Naturalization in the Wake of Anti-Immigrant Legislation: Dominicans in New York City

Carnegie Endowment in Post-Communist Societies
February 2000

Introduction

The motives of immigrants who seek to naturalize in the United States are a source of current controversy. Recent events, such as the passage in 1996 of anti-immigrant laws, ₁ appear to have increased the benefits of becoming a U.S. citizen and the costs of remaining a legal permanent resident. Critics of recent policies have argued that the laws pushed immigrants to naturalize in order to retain social welfare benefits, thus cheapening the value of U.S. citizenship. Most of the debate on this issue, however, is based on rhetoric rather than observation. The extant literature provides little insight into how these recent developments influence immigrants' propensity to naturalize through shaping their perceptions of citizenship. How immigrants understand and view the costs and benefits of U.S. citizenship are important, because they are likely to be the most proximate determinants of naturalization decisions (Alvarez 1987; Yang 1994).

In this longitudinal case study, we examine the conditions that influence how immigrants understand naturalization, as well as the factors that influence their propensities to become U.S. citizens. Our aim is to learn more about how people think and act about naturalization and the meanings they attach to U.S. citizenship within a context of changing sentiment and legislation regarding immigrants.

Other research on naturalization from a sociological perspective does not offer much direction for understanding the nature of contemporary citizenship. ₂ Prior studies focus on individual, demographic and national origin characteristics, such as English language ability, education, length of residency, and proximity to the home country as predictors of naturalization (Jasso and Rosenzweig 1990; Liang 1994a; Yang 1994). Although these studies identify variables that are correlated with naturalization, one of their principal limitations is that they neglect to explore the impact of broader social contexts on naturalization decision making and on the relative importance of individual characteristics. For example, the literature tells us very little about how family and community dynamics influence the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, despite ample research that stresses the critical role of the immigrant community and family in the integration process (Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994). We expect that the community context and the family structures and practices of individuals influence individual decisions to naturalize through shaping adaptation patterns, as well as influencing how immigrants come to understand what U.S. citizenship means.

The literature also fails to provide a full understanding of how broader social and political contexts shape the social process of naturalization. Only a few studies that we could locate look at how the local and political contexts shape naturalization decision making. Jones Correa (1998), in a study of Latin Americans in New York City, argues that immigrants are reluctant to become U.S. citizens because they retain strong ties to their home country and face numerous barriers to political participation in the United States. As a result, immigrants either do not become U.S. citizens or do so only after living in the United States for many years. Bloemraad (1999) argues that differences in the political culture in the United States and Canada influence the propensity to naturalize among immigrants in each country. She argues that Portuguese immigrants in Canada have higher rates of naturalization than similar immigrants in the United States, due to Canadian state policies that promote and encourage naturalization.

While these studies provide valuable insights into the process of naturalization, they do not explore the impact of the new federal laws on naturalization decisions. The new laws are critically important for understanding the nature of contemporary citizenship acquisition. Proposition 187, the 1994 California proposal to deny social and medical services to undocumented immigrants, began a wave of more restrictive national legislation aimed at immigrants. The most significant piece of federal legislation was the 1996 Welfare Act. The Welfare Act, as originally passed, denied access to federally funded means-tested programs (Supplemental Security Income [SSI], Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families [TANF]) to all non-naturalized immigrants. By downgrading the status of the "legal permanent resident," these laws appear to have made citizenship acquisition more contingent on events other than those traditionally associated with naturalization, such as integration and permanent settlement.

Another context influencing the nature of contemporary citizenship is the transnational character of some immigrant settlement and incorporation. A spate of recent studies contests the inevitability of assimilation in a single locale and documents the existence of transnational communities and practices. This research finds that transnational immigrants often retain strong ties to their country of origin and that the structures of both the sending and receiving communities facilitate and promote such ties (Glick Schiller, Basch, and Szanton Blanc 1992; Goldring 1992, 1996; Rouse 1992; Smith 1995; Guranizo 1994, 1997; Levitt 1996). The growth of dual citizenship both promotes and reflects the retention and creation of ties to the origin country. Few sociological studies have examined how transnational practices influence the nature of the citizenship acquisition process. It is in light of these concerns that we have undertaken this case study.

Full Version in PDF Format

Endnotes

Note 1: The "Welfare Act" (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2260 [August 22, 1996]) made sweeping changes to the structure and access of public benefits for all residents of the United States, but changes affecting the immigrant population were, at the outset, the most dramatic and the most draconian. It established restrictions on the eligibility of legal immigrants for means-tested public assistance and broadened restrictions on public benefits for undocumented immigrants. It also required the INS to verify an immigrant's status before he or she could receive benefits. The "Immigration Act" (The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 [September 30, 1996]) included provisions to bolster control of U.S. borders, established measures to remove criminal and other deportable aliens, and provided for increased protection for legal workers through worksite enforcement. It also placed added restrictions on benefits for immigrants including tightening the requirements for an affidavit of support for sponsored immigrants, by making the long-required affidavit of support legally binding. The "Antiterrorism Act" (The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 [April 24, 1996]) provided for expedited procedures for the removal of "alien terrorists" and provided for changes in criminal alien procedures, such as authorizing state and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens, and providing access to certain confidential immigration and naturalization files through court order (INS 1997).Back.

Note 2: The political science literature examines the relationship between citizenship acquisition and political participation, voting, and political change (see, for example, Garcia 1987; Pachon and DeSipio 1994; DeSipio 1987, 1996; Jones-Correa 1998).Back.