Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making
Scholars debate the relative strength of economic and ‘socio-psychological’ sources of anti-immigrant sentiment. However, the literature often fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration and therefore overlooks a major instance in which this debate is moot. To address this issue, we develop a theory that recognizes two different modes of evaluating immigrants: “attribute-based” judgment, in which respondents weigh immigrants’ desirability based on individual characteristics—human capital, race, language ability, and so on—and “categorical” judgment, which disregards these altogether. Categorical judgments arise when a policy issue triggers blanket considerations of justice or principle that obviate considerations about putative beneficiaries’ individual merits, instead evoking overriding beliefs about the desirability of the policy as a whole or casting the entire category as uniformly deserving or undeserving. We use experimental evidence from two national surveys to show that the principal distinction between attitudes toward legal and illegal immigration is not in the relative weight of immigrants’ attributes but the much greater prevalence of categorical assessments of illegal immigration policy, much of it rooted in rigid moralistic convictions about the importance of strict adherence to rules and laws.
KeywordsImmigration Public opinion United States Conjoint Illegal immigration Path to citizenship
- Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants, American Journal of Political Science. Currently available as SSRN Working Paper 2106616.Google Scholar
- Hopkins, D. J. (2013). The upside of accents: Language, skin tone, and attitudes toward immigration. SSRN Working Paper 1879965.Google Scholar
- Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Ramakrishnan, K., Esterling, K., & Neblo, M. (2010). Illegality, national origin cues, and public opinion on immigration. Unpublished Manuscript. Retrieved from http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/mneblo/papers/Illegality4Web.pdf.
- Ryan, T. J. (2015). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. Unpublished.Google Scholar
- Schildkraut, D. (2011). Americanism in the twenty-first century: Public opinion in the age of immigration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Schildkraut, D. (2012). Amnesty, Guest Workers, Fences! Oh My! Public Opinion about ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’. In G. P. Freeman, R. Hansen, & D. L. Leal (Eds.), Immigration and public opinion in liberal democracies (pp. 207–231). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Smith, R. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Sniderman, P. M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). When ways of life collide: Multiculturalism and its discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Tichenor, D. J. (2012). Immigration policy: Polarized politics, elusive reform. World Politics Review. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12401/immigration-policy-polarized-politics-elusive-reform. Accessed 9 July 2015.
- Valentino, N. A., & Iyengar, S. (2011). Skin vs. skill: Exploring economic vs. racial threats as drivers of immigration opinion in the comparative context. Paper presented at the 2011 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar