Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 157–180 | Cite as

Unemployment and Immigrant Receptivity Climate in Established and Newly Emerging Destination Areas

  • Gordon F. De Jong
  • Deborah Graefe
  • Chris Galvan
  • Stephanie Howe Hasanali


This study examines whether the receptivity climate toward immigrants varies across traditional, new, and emerging Hispanic immigrant destinations in the U.S. and whether that climate is related to local unemployment rates and to the job-skill level of immigrants who settle in these places. We utilize unique, newly collected data to measure local labor market area immigrant receptivity climate based on content analysis of a random sample of all articles addressing immigrants/immigration which were published by local area newspapers from 1995 to 2010. The descriptive data show considerable diversity in local and regional immigrant receptivity patterns across the 380 U.S. labor market areas. Using annual labor market-specific unemployment rates, decadal measures of the educational attainment of immigrants and natives in the labor market area, and an annual summary measure of the immigrant receptivity climate, controlling for theoretically relevant labor market contextual characteristics, results from our regression models show that the immigrant receptivity climate is more negative where unemployment rates are higher. However, this relationship is evident only for new and non-destination areas compared with established immigrant destinations when control variables are considered. While a higher skill level of immigrants (a labor competition argument) is related to less negativity toward them, it does not explain the relationship between unemployment and immigrant receptivity climate. Overall, a high skill level of natives is the better explanation for a more positive immigrant receptivity climate.


Immigrant receptivity climate Unemployment Local labor markets Immigrant skill level 



The authors acknowledge support from the NIH Program Project Grant #P01 HD062498 and NIH Grant #R24HD041025 to the Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. Most of the research in this paper was undertaken while Chris Galvan was at the Population Research Institute.

Supplementary material

11113_2016_9408_MOESM1_ESM.doc (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 26 kb)


  1. Barkan, E. (2003). Return of the Nativists? California public opinion and immigration in the 1980s and 1990s. Social Science History, 27, 229–283.Google Scholar
  2. Bergesen, A. J., & Herman, M. (1988). Immigration, race, and riot: The 1992 Los Angeles uprising. American Sociological Review, 63, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blinder, S., & Allen, W. L. (2016). Constructing immigrants: Portrayals of migrant groups in British National Newspapers, 2010-2012. International Migration Review, 50, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivation. The Journal of Politics, 59, 858–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. City of Dayton Office of the City Commission (2011). Welcome Dayton Plan, 2011. Immigrant Friendly City. Dayton: Author.Google Scholar
  8. De Jong, G. F., & Steinmetz, M. (2004). Receptivity attitudes and the occupational attainment of male and female immigrant workers. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J. D., & Soule, S. A. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Espenshade, T. J., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration. International Migration Review, 30, 535–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhard, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigrants in the United States, France, and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gambetta, R., & Gedrimaite, Z. (2010). Municipal innovation in immigrant integration: 20 cities, 20 good practices. Washington, DC: National League of Cities, American Cities Series.Google Scholar
  14. George, L. (2007). What’s fit to print: The effect of ownership concentration on product variety in daily newspaper markets. Information Economics and Policy, 19, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2007). Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61, 399–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, M. S., Singer, A., De Jong, G., & Graefe, D. R. (2011). The geography of immigrant skills: Educational profiles of metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.Google Scholar
  18. Higham, J. (1955). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ho, D. E., & Quinn, K. M. (2009). Viewpoint diversity and media consolidation: An empirical study. Stanford Law Review, 61, 781–868.Google Scholar
  20. Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104, 40–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koopmans, R., & Rucht, D. (1999). Protest event analysis—Where to now? Mobilization, 4, 123–130.Google Scholar
  22. Kriesi, H. R. K., Dyvendak, J. S., & Giugni, M. S. (1995). New social movements in Western Europe. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Laglagaron, L., Rodriguez, C., Silver, A., & Thanasombat, S. (2008). Regulating immigration at the state level. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, Y., & Ottati, V. (2002). Attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy: The role of in-group-out-group bias, economic concern, and obedience to law. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. (2009). Immigrant gateways and hispanic migration to new destinations. International Migration Review, 43, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy, J. D., McPhail, C., Smith, J., & Crishock, L. J. (1999). Electronic and print media representation of Washington, D.C., demonstrations: A demography of description bias. In D. Rucht, R. Koopmans, & F. Neidhart (Eds.), Acts of dissent (pp. 113–130). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  28. O’Neil, K. (2010). Hazelton and beyond: Why communities try to restrict immigration. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Olzak, S. (1989). Analysis of events in studies of collective actions. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olzak, S. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Perez, E. O. (2010). Explicit evidence on the import of implicit attitudes: The IAT of immigration policy judgment. Political Behavior, 32, 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price, P., & Benton-Short, L. (2008). Migrants to the metropolis: The rise of gateway cities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice and a response to perceived group threat: Population, composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rafail, P., Soule, S. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2012). Describing and accounting for trends in US protest policing, 1960-1995. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 736–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ridgley, J. (2008). Cities of refuge: Immigration enforcement, policy, and the insurgent genealogies of citizenship in U.S. Sanctuary Cities. Urban Geography, 29, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rossell, L. M., De Jong, G. F., Graefe, D. R., & Maull, A.E. (2009). State immigration legislation and policy: Immigrant receptivity climate and access to public benefits and services. Penn State University Population Research Institute. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy and Management, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Rucht, D., Koopmans, R., & Neidhardt, F. (Eds.). (1999). Acts of dissent. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Rustenbach, E. (2010). Sources of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Europe: A multi-level analysis. International Migration Review, 44, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer, A. (2004). The rise of new immigrant gateways. The Living Cities Census Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  41. Singer, A. (2005). The rise of new immigrant gateways: Historical flows, recent settlement trends. In A. Berub, B. Katz, & R. E. Lang (Eds.), Redefining urban and suburban America (pp. 41–86). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, A., Hardwick, S. W., & Brettel, C. B. (Eds.). (2009). Twenty-first century gateways: Immigrant incorporation in suburban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  43. Terrazas, A. (2011). Immigrants in new-destination states. Migration Information Source (February 8). Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrants-new-destination-states.
  44. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2004). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2003. Current Population Reports P20-551. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  45. Valentino, N., Brander, T., & Jardina, A. (2013). Immigration opposition among U.S. Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology, 34, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Varsayi, M. W. (2008). Immigration Policing through the backdoor: City ordinances, the ‘right to the city’, and the exclusion of undocumented day laborers. Urban Geography, 29, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, K. E. (2014). Immigration, local policy, and national identity in the suburban United States. Urban Geography, 35, 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker, K. E., & Leitner, H. (2011). The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography, 32, 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wells, M. J. (2004). The grassroots reconfiguration of U.S. immigration policy. International Migration Review, 38, 1308–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, W. C., Grillo, M. C., & Teixeira, M. A. (2007). What’s in a place? Openness toward immigrants and community satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  51. Zuniga, V., & Hernandez-Leon, R. (Eds.). (2005). New destinations: Mexican immigration to the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon F. De Jong
    • 1
  • Deborah Graefe
    • 1
  • Chris Galvan
    • 2
  • Stephanie Howe Hasanali
    • 1
  1. 1.Population Research InstitutePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Bureau of the CensusWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations