Can leveraging family history reduce xenophobia? Building on theories of group identity, we show that a family history of forced relocation leaves an imprint on future generations and can be activated to increase sympathy toward refugees. We provide evidence from Greece and Germany, two countries that vividly felt the European refugee crisis, and that witnessed large-scale forced displacement of their own populations during the twentieth century. Combining historical and survey data with an experimental manipulation, we show that mentioning the parallels between past and present differentially increases pledged monetary donations and attitudinal measures of sympathy for refugees among respondents with forcibly displaced ancestors. This differential effect is also present among respondents without a family history of forced migration who live in places with high historical concentration of refugees. Our findings highlight the role of identity and shared experience for reducing out-group discrimination.

Each year the United States resettles thousands of refugees in pre-determined locations across the country. However, refugees are free to relocate upon arrival. Although this secondary migration can fundamentally alter outcomes for both refugees and the communities that host them, policymakers lack systematic data on this phenomenon. Using novel administrative data covering all adult refugees resettled between 2000 and 2014 (N≈447,000), we provide a comprehensive analysis of secondary migration patterns. A high proportion of refugees leave their initial resettlement site and migrate to a different state, although rates vary widely by origin, family ties, and arrival state. Importantly, secondary migration is driven primarily by the presence of co-ethnic networks and labor market considerations. We find no evidence that patterns of secondary migration are driven by state partisanship and the generosity of welfare benefits.

We provide evidence that citizenship catalyzes the long-term economic integration of immigrants. Despite the relevance of citizenship policy to immigrant integration, we lack a reliable understanding of the economic consequences of acquiring citizenship. To overcome nonrandom selection into naturalization, we exploit the quasi-random assignment of citizenship in Swiss municipalities that held referendums to decide the outcome of individual naturalization applications. Our data combine individual-level referendum results with detailed social security records from the Swiss authorities. This approach allows us to compare the long-term earnings of otherwise similar immigrants who barely won or lost their referendum. We find that winning Swiss citizenship in the referendum increased annual earnings by an average of approximately 5000 U.S. dollars over the subsequent 15 years. This effect is concentrated among more marginalized immigrants.

How does the appearance of a new immigrant group affect the integration of earlier generations of migrants? We study this question in the context of the first Great Migration (1915-1930), when 1.5 million African Americans moved from the US South to northern urban centers, where 30 million Europeans had arrived since 1850. We exploit plausibly exogenous variation induced by the interaction between 1900 settlements of southern-born blacks in northern cities and state-level out-migration from the US South after 1910. Black arrivals increased both the effort exerted by immigrants to assimilate and their eventual Americanization. These average effects mask substantial heterogeneity: while initially less integrated groups (i.e. Southern and Eastern Europeans) exerted more assimilation effort, assimilation success was larger for those culturally closer to native whites (i.e. Western and Northern Europeans). We show that these patterns cannot be entirely explained by economic forces. Our findings are instead more consistent with a framework in which changing perceptions of outgroup distance among the majority group lower the barriers to the assimilation of less distant minorities.

The problem of low naturalization rates in the United States has entered policymakers’ agendas in light of the societal gains associated with citizenship and an increasing number of foreign-born residents. Nevertheless, there is little evidence on what policy interventions work best to increase naturalization rates. In this research, we show that the standardization of the fee waiver for citizenship applications in 2010 raised naturalization rates among low-income immigrants. These gains were particularly sizable among those immigrants who typically face higher hurdles to accessing citizenship. These findings have implications for policymakers interested in designing policies that help disadvantaged immigrant groups overcome barriers to citizenship.

Objectives To determine whether expanding Emergency Medicaid to cover prenatal care in Oregon affected maternal health outcomes for unauthorized immigrants. Methods This study takes place in Oregon from 2003 to 2015 and includes all Emergency Medicaid and Medicaid claims for women aged 12–51 with a pregnancy related claim. To isolate the effect of expanding access to prenatal care, we utilized a difference-in-differences approach that exploits the staggered rollout of the prenatal care program. The primary outcome was a composite measure of severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Additional outcomes include adequacy of prenatal care, detection of pregnancy complications and birth outcomes. Results A total of 213,746 pregnancies were included, with 35,182 covered by Emergency Medicaid, 12,510 covered by Emergency Medicaid Plus (with prenatal care), and 166,054 covered by standard Medicaid. Emergency Medicaid Plus coverage did not affect severe maternal morbidity (all pregnancies 0.05%, CI − 0.29; 0.39; high-risk pregnancies 2.20%, CI − 0.47; 4.88). The program did reduce inadequate care among all pregnancies (− 31.75%, 95% CI − 34.47; − 29.02) and among high risk pregnancies (− 38.60%, CI − 44.17; − 33.02) and increased diagnosis of gestational diabetes (6.24%, CI 4.36; 8.13; high risk pregnancies 10.48%, CI 5.87; 15.08), and poor fetal growth (7.37%, CI 5.69; 9.05; high risk pregnancies 5.34%, CI 1.00; 9.68). The program also increased diagnosis of pre-existing diabetes mellitus (all pregnancies 2.93%, CI 2.16; 3.69), hypertensive diseases of pregnancy (all pregnancies 1.28%, CI 0.52; 2.04) and a history of preterm birth (all pregnancies 0.87%, CI 0.27; 1.47). Conclusions for Practice Oregon’s prenatal care expansion program produced positive effects for unauthorized immigrant women and their children.