Demography

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 169–191

Dual citizenship rights: do they make more and richer citizens?

  • Francesca Mazzolari
Article

Abstract

In the 1990s, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Brazil passed dual citizenship laws granting their expatriates the right to naturalize in the receiving country without losing their nationality of origin. I estimate the effects of these new laws on naturalization rates and labor market outcomes in the United States. Based on data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. censuses, In find that immigrants recently granted dual nationality rights are more likely to naturalize relative to immigrants from other Latin American countries. They also experience relative employment and earnings gains, together with drops in welfare use, suggesting that dual citizenship rights not only increase the propensity to naturalize but may also promote economic assimilation. The effects of dual citizenship on improved economic performance, if mediated through naturalization, are consistent with American citizenship conferring greater economic opportunities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, B. 2007. “Trends in Naturalization Rates.” Fact Sheet, December 2007. Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
  2. Bleakley, H. and A. Chin. 2004. “Language Skills and Earnings: Evidence From Childhood Immigrants.” Review of Economics and Statistics 86:481–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloemraad, I. 2004. “Who Claims Dual Citizenship? The Limits of Postnationalism, the Possibilities of Transnationalism, and the Persistence of Traditional Citizenship.” International Migration Review 38:389–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. —. 2006a. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. —. 2006b. “Becoming a Citizen in the United States and Canada: Structured Mobilization and Immigrant Political Incorporation.” Social Forces 85:667–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borjas, G.J. 1999. “The Economic Analysis of Immigration.” Pp. 1697–760 in Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. —. 2002. “Welfare Reform and Immigrant Participation in Welfare Programs.” International Migration Review 36:1093–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borjas, G.J., and B. Bratsberg. 1996. “Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born.” Review of Economics and Statistics 87:165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borjas, G.J., and S. Trejo. 1991. “Immigrant Participation in the Welfare System.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44:195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bratsberg, B., J.F. Ragan, and Z.M. Nasir. 2002. “The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants.” Journal of Labor Economics 20:568–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bueker, C.S. 2006. From Immigrant to Naturalized Citizen. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  12. Chiswick, B.R. 1978. “The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-born Men.” Journal of Political Economy 86:897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cortes, K. 2004. “Are Refugees Different From Economic Immigrants? Some Empirical Evidence on the Heterogeneity of Immigrant Groups in the United States.” Review of Economics and Statistics 86:465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costanzo, J., C. Davis, C. Irazi, D. Goodkind, and R. Ramirez. 2001. “Evaluating Components of International Migration: The Residual Foreign Born.” Population Division Working Paper Series No. 61. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. DeSipio, L. 1996a. Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a New Electorate. Charlottesville, VA: The University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  16. —. 1996b. “Making Citizens or Good Citizens? Naturalization as a Predictor of Organizational and Electoral Behavior Among Latino Immigrants.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18:194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fix, M.E., J.S. Passel, and K. Sucher. 2003. “Trends in Naturalization.” Immigration Studies Program Brief. No. 3. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Imbens, G.W. and J.D. Angrist. 1994. “Identi_cation and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica 62:467–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaushal, N. 2006. “Amnesty Programs and the Labor Market Outcomes of Undocumented Workers.” Journal of Human Resources 61:631–47.Google Scholar
  20. Kossoudji, S.A. and D. Cobb-Clark. 2002. “Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning About Legal Status and Wages From the Legalized Population.” Journal of Labor Economics 20:598–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasso, G. and M.R. Rosenzweig. 1990. “Family Reuni_ cation and the Immigration Multiplier: U.S. Immigration Law, Origin-Country Conditions, and the Reproduction of Immigrants.” Demography 23:291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones-Correa, M. 2001a. “Institutional and Contextual Factors in Immigrant Citizenship and Voting.” Citizenship Studies 5:41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. —. 2001b. “Under Two Flags: Dual Nationality in Latin America and Its Consequences for Naturalization in the United States.” International Migration Review 35:997–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang, Z. 1994. “Social Contact, Social Capital, and the Naturalization Process: Evidence From Six Immigrant Groups.” Social Science Research 23:407–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lofstrom, M. 2002. “Labor Market Assimilation and the Self-Employment Decision of Immigrant Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Population Economics 15:83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, B.D. 1995. “Natural and Quasi-Experiments in Economics.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13:151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Passel, J.S. and R. Clark. 1997. “How Many Naturalized Citizens Are There? An Assessment of Data Quality in the Decennial Census and CPS.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC, March 27-29.Google Scholar
  28. Plascencia, L.F., G.P. Freeman, and M. Setzler. 2003. “The Decline of Barriers to Immigrant Economic and Political Rights in the American States: 1977-2001.” International Migration Review 37:5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portes, A. and R.G. Rumbaut. 2006. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ramakrishnan, S.K. 2005. Democracy in Immigrant America: Changing Demographics and Political Participation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, J.G. 2001. “ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results.” Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II, Report No. 1: U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. Ruggles, S., M. Sobek, T. Alexander, C.A. Fitch, R. Goeken, P.K. Hall, M. King, and C. Ronnander. 2004. “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0.” Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1997. 1996 Statistical Yearbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2003. “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000.” Available online at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications /Ill_Report_1211.pdf.Google Scholar
  35. Van Hook, J., S.K. Brown, and F.D. Bean. 2006. “For Love or for Money? Welfare Reform and Immigrant Naturalization.” Social Forces 85:643–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warren, R. 1995. “Estimates of the Undocumented Immigrant Population Residing in the United States by Country of Origin and State of Residence: October 1992.” Unpublished document. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.Google Scholar
  37. Yang, P.Q. 1994. “Explaining Immigrant Naturalization.” International Migration Review 28:449–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmermann, W. and K.C. Tumlin. 1999. “Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants Under Welfare Reform.” Occasional Paper 24. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Mazzolari
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California-IrvineIrvine

Personalised recommendations