Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immigration scholars have increasingly questioned the idea that “illegality” is a fixed, inherent condition. Instead, the new consensus is that immigration laws produce “illegality.” But can “illegality” be socially constructed? When initially judging who is an “illegal immigrant,” common observers and even authorities typically do not rely on an individual’s documentation. Instead, people rely on shared stereotypes to assign “illegality” to certain bodies, a condition we refer to as “social illegality.” Ethnographers have documented that individual traits like occupation or national-origin may trigger illegality suspicions, but it is not clear how widespread these stereotypes are, or whether all stereotypes are equally consequential. To address this question, we examine the personal attributes shaping perceived “illegality.” We apply a paired conjoint survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of 1,515 non-Hispanic white U.S. adults to assess the independent effect of each dimension. We find that national origin, social class, and criminal background powerfully shape perceptions of illegality. These findings reveal a new source of ethnic-based inequalities—“social illegality”—that may potentially increase law enforcement scrutiny and influence the decisions of hiring managers, landlords, teachers, and other members of the public.

Assimilation is theorized as a multi-stage process where the structural mobility of immigrants and their descendants ultimately leads to established and immigrant-origin populations developing a subjective sense of social similarity with one another, an outcome I term symbolic belonging. Yet existing work offers little systematic evidence as to whether and how immigrants' gains—in terms of language ability, socioeconomic status, neighborhood integration, or intermarriage—cause changes in the perceptions of the native-born U.S. population. I use a nationally representative conjoint survey experiment to explore whether and how immigrants' mobility gains shape native-born white citizens' perceptions of symbolic belonging. I find that white natives are generally open to structural relationships with immigrant-origin individuals (e.g., friends and neighbors), with the exception of black immigrants and natives, and undocumented immigrants. Yet, white Americans simultaneously view all non-white people, regardless of legal status, as dissimilar and far from achieving symbolic belonging in U.S. society. The results offer optimism about the potential structural mobility of legal immigrants and their descendants, yet simultaneously suggest that explicitly racialized lines of division remain just below the surface.

Using a unique data set of millions of advertisements for rental housing and data on the geographic distribution of housing voucher holders, we examine the limits of housing market policies that rely on private-market landlords to meet public needs. We find that although advertised affordable housing is more prevalent in some zip codes than others, voucher households are more geographically clustered than affordable housing. Moreover, voucher holders are overly concentrated in “lower opportunity” zip codes, those with fewer resources for children’s well-being, despite the advertisement of affordable housing in higher opportunity neighborhoods. Using text-analysis techniques, we identify advertisements that explicitly accept or reject voucher holders and find that ads seeking voucher-holding tenants are overrepresented in lower opportunity neighborhoods. We evaluate the significance of these findings for theories of predatory inclusion.

Past research finds that Americans hold biased stereotypes about ethnoracial groups and about immigrants, but we lack an understanding of how these group identities intersect. Immigration theories offer opposing predictions; while the straight-line assimilation model predicts Americans will hold weaker ethnoracial stereotypes about the native-born compared to their immigrant coethnics, theories of racialized assimilation suggest that the enduring power of race will limit any differential stereotyping of immigrant and native-born members of racialized groups. I use an original survey experiment to compare Americans’ stereotypes of native- and foreign-born members of the four largest ethnoracial groups in the United States—Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians. As predicted by straight-line assimilation theory, I find that Whites’ negative stereotypes of Latinos fade away with nativity; however, White Americans do not substantially alter their stereotypes of Asians and Blacks based on nativity status. Moreover, native-born Black and Latino Americans do not appear to hold differential stereotypes of ethnoracial groups based on their nativity status. This research highlights both the importance and limitations of accounting for nativity status to understand ethnoracial group boundaries in the United States.

Increasing Spanish fluency in the United States likely shapes ethnoracial group boundaries and inequality. We study a key site for group boundary negotiations—the housing market—where Spanish usage may represent a key source of information exchange between landlords and prospective renters. Specifically, we examine the use of Spanish in advertisements for online rental housing and its effect on White, Black, and Latinx Americans' residential preferences. Using a corpus of millions of Craigslist rental listings, we show that Spanish listings are concentrated in majority-Latinx neighborhoods with greater proportions of immigrant and Spanish-speaking residents. Furthermore, units that are advertised in Spanish tend be lower priced relative to non-Spanish ads in the same neighborhood. We then use a survey experiment to demonstrate that Spanish usage decreases White, Black, and non-Spanish-speaking Latinx Americans' interest in a housing unit and surrounding neighborhood, whereas Spanish-speaking Latinx respondents are less affected. We discuss these findings in light of past work on neighborhood demographic preferences, segregation, and recent theorizing on within-category inequality.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in more than 900,000 deaths in the United States, disproportionately affecting racial and ethnic minorities. The pandemic is likely leading to disparate experiences of loss, though little research to date has examined disparities in experiences of loss from COVID-19. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of 6,000 first- and second-generation Latinx and Asian adults carried out in April and May 2021, this study reveals sharp disparities between and within ethnoracial groups in the United States in the experience of losing household members or close family and friends to COVID-19. Latinx adults were 1.65 times more likely than Asian adults to experience the loss of a loved one from COVID-19 (38 percent vs. 23 percent). First- and second-generation Indian Americans experienced disproportionately high rates of loss relative to other Asian Americans (33 percent). Looking both across and within ethnoracial categories is critical for understanding how the pandemic has compounded preexisting disadvantage.

How does immigrant generation shape Latinos’ neighborhood attitudes? We extend theoretical frameworks focused on neighborhood attainment to explore how immigrant generation structures Latinos’ neighborhood satisfaction, particularly with respect to neighborhood immigrant composition. Using longitudinal data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, we estimate fixed-effects regression models to examine the associations between self-reported neighborhood satisfaction and changes in neighborhood immigrant composition. We find that first-generation Latino immigrants tend to react more positively to growing immigrant populations in their neighborhoods compared to 1.5-generation and native-born Latinos; these differences are most pronounced in more socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods. We consider the implications of these attitudinal differences for understanding the mechanisms of Latino residential segregation and neighborhood attainment.

The ways in which immigrant health profiles change with shifts in acculturation is of increasing interest to scholars and policy makers in the United States, but little is known about the mechanisms that may link acculturation and self-rated health, particularly for Asians. Utilizing the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and its data on foreign-born Latinos (N= 1,199) and Asians (N= 1,323) (Pennell et al. 2004), we investigate and compare the associations between acculturation and self-rated health for immigrants to the United States from six major ethnic subgroups (Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican). Using comprehensive measures of acculturation, we demonstrate that across ethnic groups, and despite the widely varying contexts of the sending countries and receiving communities, native-language dominance is associated with worse self-rated health relative to bilingualism, and measures of lower acculturation—coethnic ties and remittances—are associated with better self-rated health; and moreover, these associations are only partially mediated by socioeconomic status, and not mediated by acculturative stress, discrimination, social support, or health behaviors. We speculate that immigrants who maintain a native language while also acquiring English, as has been shown for other immigrant outcomes, attain a bicultural fluency, which also enables good health. Surprisingly, we do not find strong associations between duration of time in the United States or age at migration—measures frequently used to proxy acculturation—with self-rated health. Our findings illustrate the complexity of measuring acculturation and its influence on health for immigrants.

This study examines how COVID-induced and general attitudes toward Asians have changed over the course of the pandemic using nationally representative survey experiments in 2020 and 2022. First, we measured COVID-induced anti-Asian attitudes as the effect of a treatment reminding respondents of the pandemic on whether respondents would be willing to live or work with someone who is East or South Asian. The results suggest that the COVID-19 treatment worsened attitudes toward East and South Asians in the social domain and toward East Asians in the economic domain in 2020, but not in 2022. Second, we measured change in general attitudes toward Asians by comparing the control group responses in 2020 and 2022. The results demonstrate that, over the same period, general attitudes toward Asians have not improved despite growing attention toward anti-Asian biases. This finding underscores the persistence of general negative attitudes toward Asians beyond the immediate context of the pandemic and the ongoing imperative to actively address deeply ingrained biases against Asians.

People rely on powerful stereotypes to classify others as “illegal,” demonstrating that, like race and gender, documentation status may be as much a social construction as a legal one.