Migration and Citizenship
Paragraphs

The United States operates the world’s largest refugee resettlement program. However, there is almost no systematic evidence on whether refugees successfully integrate into American society over the long run. We address this gap by drawing on linked administrative data to directly measure a long-term integration outcome: naturalization rates. Assessing the full population of refugees resettled between 2000 and 2010, we find that refugees naturalize at high rates: 66% achieved citizenship by 2015. This rate is substantially higher than among other immigrants who became eligible for citizenship during the same period. We also find significant heterogeneity in naturalization rates. Consistent with the literature on immigration more generally, sociodemographic characteristics condition the likelihood of naturalization. Women, refugees with longer residency, and those with higher education levels are more likely to obtain citizenship. National origins also matter. While refugees from Iran, Iraq, and Somalia naturalize at higher rates, those from Burma, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Liberia naturalize at lower rates. We also find naturalization success is significantly shaped by the initial resettlement location. Placing refugees in areas that are urban, have lower rates of unemployment, and have a larger share of conationals increases the likelihood of acquiring citizenship. These findings suggest pathways to promote refugee integration by targeting interventions and by optimizing the geographic placement of refugees.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
PNAS
Authors
Nadwa Mossaad
Jeremy Ferwerda
Duncan Lawrence
Jeremy M. Weinstein
Jens Hainmueller
-

This Workshop examines the political economy of immigration and integration, the role of partisanship, and how immigration is perceived as both diversity and an economic and cultural threat. The second in a series, this workshop focuses on immigration as part of the Global Populisms project sponsored by the Hewlett Foundation and Freeman Spogli Institute. Workshop hosted by: Anna Grzymala-Busse, Michael McFaul, and Francis Fukuyama.

The Populism + Immigration Workshop is open to Stanford faculty, staff, students, and affiliated visitors. Please RSVP to ashkurko@stanford.edu

Image
Populism + Immigration Conference

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA  94305

 

(650) 723-4270
0
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies
Professor of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
anna_gb_4_2022.jpg

Anna Grzymała-Busse is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.

In her first book, Redeeming the Communist Past, she examined the paradox of the communist successor parties in East Central Europe: incompetent as authoritarian rulers of the communist party-state, several then succeeded as democratic competitors after the collapse of these communist regimes in 1989.

Rebuilding Leviathan, her second book project, investigated the role of political parties and party competition in the reconstruction of the post-communist state. Unless checked by a robust competition, democratic governing parties simultaneously rebuilt the state and ensured their own survival by building in enormous discretion into new state institutions.

Anna's third book, Nations Under God, examines why some churches have been able to wield enormous policy influence. Others have failed to do so, even in very religious countries. Where religious and national identities have historically fused, churches gained great moral authority, and subsequently covert and direct access to state institutions. It was this institutional access, rather than either partisan coalitions or electoral mobilization, that allowed some churches to become so powerful.

Anna's most recent book, Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State argues that the medieval church was a fundamental force in European state formation.

Other areas of interest include informal institutions, the impact of European Union membership on politics in newer member countries, and the role of temporality and causal mechanisms in social science explanations.

Director of The Europe Center

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
2022-mcfaul-headshot.jpg
PhD

Michael McFaul is Director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995. Dr. McFaul also is as an International Affairs Analyst for NBC News and a columnist for The Washington Post. He served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014).

He has authored several books, most recently the New York Times bestseller From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Earlier books include Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; Transitions To Democracy: A Comparative Perspective (eds. with Kathryn Stoner); Power and Purpose: American Policy toward Russia after the Cold War (with James Goldgeier); and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. He is currently writing a book called Autocrats versus Democrats: Lessons from the Cold War for Competing with China and Russia Today.

He teaches courses on great power relations, democratization, comparative foreign policy decision-making, and revolutions.

Dr. McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. In International Relations at Oxford University in 1991. His DPhil thesis was Southern African Liberation and Great Power Intervention: Towards a Theory of Revolution in an International Context.

CV

Encina Hall, C148
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305

0
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
Research Affiliate at The Europe Center
Professor by Courtesy, Department of Political Science
yff-2021-14290_6500x4500_square.jpg

Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy Program, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His most recent book,  Liberalism and Its Discontents, was published in the spring of 2022.

Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004.  

Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), and the Pardee Rand Graduate School. He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.

(October 2024)

CV
Date Label
Conferences
Paragraphs
We model the cultural outcomes of ‘sons of the soil’ conflicts. These are conflicts between the local inhabitants of a particular region and migrants to the region, typically belonging to a dominant national culture. Our goal is to understand the conditions under which migrants assimilate into the local culture, or in which locals assimilate into the national culture. The model has two main actors: a national elite of a dominant ethnic group, and a regional elite seeking to promote the traditional culture of the sons of the soil. Both actors haveparallel strategies, viz. assimilating the other group into their culture, controlling the size of t he migrant population, doing both, or allowing market forces to determine outcomes. The model has three possible cultural outcomes: the culture tips to that of the sons of the soil; the culture tips to that of the migrant group; or the region remains bicultural, with each group retaining its own culture. We illustrate these outcomes through four cases: (i) Bengalis and Assamese in the Indian state of Assam; (ii) Russians and Estonians in the Ida-Virumaa county of Estonia; (iii) Tamils and Sinhalese in Jaffna and the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka; and (iv) Castilians and Catalans in the autonomous community of Catalonia in Spain.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Journal of Theoretical Politics
Authors
Avidit Acharya
David Laitin
Anna Zhang
Paragraphs

The authors compile large data sets from Norwegian and US historical censuses to study return migration during the Age of Mass Migration (1850–1913). Norwegian immigrants who returned to Norway held lower-paid occupations than did Norwegian immigrants who stayed in the United States, both before and after their first transatlantic migration, suggesting they were negatively selected from the migrant pool. Upon returning to Norway, return migrants held higher-paid occupations relative to Norwegians who never moved, despite hailing from poorer backgrounds. These patterns suggest that despite being negatively selected, return migrants had been able to accumulate savings and could improve their economic circumstances once they returned home.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
ILR Review
Authors
Ran Abramitzky
Leah Platt Boustan
Katherine Eriksson
Authors
Alex Shashkevich
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

New research by Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky studies Norwegian immigrants to the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries who chose to return to Europe. Return migrants hailed from poorer backgrounds but ended up holding higher-paid occupations back home.

 

Image
Image of Ran Abramitzky
Today’s conversation about immigration and the role of immigrants in America is not so different from the conversations that took place more than 100 years ago, when European immigrants settled in cities and on farms in the United States.

That’s why Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky and his colleagues spent the past decade analyzing data on immigrants in the United States between 1850 and 1913, which was the time of the country’s largest wave of migration.

His latest research explores return migrants, those who eventually chose to come back to Europe, and how they fared when they got home. The study focuses on migrants from Norway – made possible by the availability of comprehensive new data on their activities. The research compares return migrants to both Norwegian immigrants who chose to stay in the U.S. and to the Norwegian population that never moved abroad.

The researchers found that Norwegian immigrants who returned home in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were more likely to have held lower-skilled occupations, compared with both Norwegians who never moved and those who stayed in the United States.  But upon returning to Norway, the return migrants held higher-paying occupations than Norwegians who never moved.

The findings are contrary to the popular belief that return migration mostly resulted from bad shocks, such as an illness or unemployment, said Abramitzky, an associate professor of economics at Stanford and co-author of the recently published article in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Instead, it appears that return migrants already hailed from poorer backgrounds before their move.

“Moving permanently to the New World was one strategy that poor European immigrants used to achieve economic success,” Abramitzky said of his joint work with Leah Boustan of Princeton University and Katherine Eriksson of the University of California, Davis. “This research suggests that temporary movement to the United States in order to accumulate savings and invest in the home country was another option available to the poor.”

Reasons for return migration

The study on return migrants is the latest piece in Abramitzky’s larger research project, which he began with his co-authors about 10 years ago, on immigration in the U.S. between 1850 and 1913.

About 30 million Europeans immigrated during the period, which scholars call the Age of Mass Migration, as America maintained open, largely unrestricted borders for European migrants until about 1914. By 1910, 22 percent of the country’s labor force was foreign-born, compared to 17 percent of today’s working population.

The same period also saw a high rate of return migration. One in three immigrants returned to their home country.

To learn which immigrants moved back and how they fared economically, Abramitzky and his colleagues needed comprehensive data on immigrants from a single country.

“It is challenging to study these types of questions because systematic data on return migrants are not typically collected,” Abramitzky said.

But Norway, which experienced a high rate of out-migration during this period, was a unique case. The country’s 1910 census asked respondents whether they spent some time in the United States, and, if so, the dates of their arrival and departure, last state of residence and last occupation held.

Because Norway recently released digital versions of those census datasets, Abramitzky and his research team chose to focus on the Scandinavian country, conducting an unprecedented analysis of individual data on return migrants to Europe during that period.

Abramitzky, Boustan and Eriksson linked the American and Norwegian census data sets to compare Norwegian migrants still living in the U.S. in 1910 with Norwegian immigrants who returned after a couple of years – as well as to Norwegians who stayed in Norway throughout this period.

The data showed that immigrants who held low-paid occupations or who came from rural parts of Norway were more likely to come back after moving to America. Once back home, the return migrants held higher-paid occupations than the Norwegians who never moved, despite hailing from poorer backgrounds.

That return migrants climbed to a higher rung on the occupational ladder may have been the result of savings accrued in the U.S., according to the researchers. Many return migrants worked as farmers, often in their town of birth. When these men – who had started out as poor farm laborers – returned to Norway, they were more likely than the non-movers to purchase and work on their own farms, a more lucrative profession made possible by the increased land they were able to buy with their savings.

These temporary moves might have been necessary, the researchers wrote, because it was difficult to borrow money in Norway, which was not as advanced financially as the U.S.

Immigration then and now

During the Age of Mass Migration, politicians and the public raised questions about immigrants that are similar to those discussed today. Can immigrants successfully integrate into America’s society and economy? Or do they remain isolated long after they settle?

Abramitzky’s past work on immigrants from 16 sending European countries provides some clues. A 2014 study showed that European immigrants arrived in the U.S. with occupations comparable to native-born Americans, and his 2016 research on cultural assimilation documented that immigrants who arrived in the early 20th century chose less foreign names for their sons and daughters as they spent more time in the United States.

Abramitzky and his collaborators are now working on a book on their years of research on immigration during that period, which may offer lessons for today’s migration policy debate.

“If we want to know how today’s newcomers will fare, we can find important clues by examining what happened to those who arrived on our shores during the greatest surge of immigration in U.S. history,” Abramitzky said. “Comparing our findings with contemporary studies can illuminate the effect of modern immigration policy on migrant selection and migrant assimilation.”

 

Media Contacts

Ran Abramitzky, Department of Economics: (650) 723-9276, ranabr@stanford.edu

Alex Shashkevich, Stanford News Service: (650) 497-4419, ashashkevich@stanford.edu

 

This article was originally published in the Stanford Report on September 12, 2017.

 

All News button
1
Paragraphs

Kirk Bansak, Jens Hainmueller and Dominik Hangartner’s study of the European refugee crisis shows broad support across Europe for the proportional allocation of asylum seekers.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
LSE Department of Government Blog
Authors
Kirk Bansak
Jens Hainmueller
Dominik Hangartner
Paragraphs

What type of common asylum regime would Europeans support? We conducted a survey asking 18,000 citizens of 15 European countries about their preferences regarding different mechanisms for allocating asylum seekers across countries. A large majority supports an allocation that is proportional to each country’s capacity over the status quo policy of allocation based on the country of first entry. This majority support is weakened but persists even among a randomly assigned subset of respondents who were made aware that moving to proportional allocation would increase the number of asylum seekers allocated to their own country. These results suggest that citizens care deeply about the fairness of the responsibility-sharing mechanism, rather than only the consequences of the asylum policy. The findings also highlight a potential pathway towards reform of the Common European Asylum System.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Human Behaviour
Authors
Kirk Bansak
Jens Hainmueller
Dominik Hangartner
Paragraphs

On January 27, true to his campaign promise to suspend Muslim immigration, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting all immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and indefinitely barring Syrian refugees from entering the United States. By doing so, the Trump administration has taken a definite stance on what it holds as the threat posed by immigrants and refugees to U.S. security. As we argued in April 2016, however, democracies like the United States “are not opening their doors to terrorism when they let in Muslim immigrants.”

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Foreign Affairs
Authors
Claire L. Adida
David Laitin
Marie-Anne Valfort
Paragraphs

What type of asylum regime do European citizens support? Based on a survey experiment involving 18,000 citizens across fifteen European countries, we examine public support for alternative mechanisms for allocating asylum seekers across Europe. We provide novel evidence showing that public preferences on this issue are driven largely by adherence to the Aristotelian norm of proportional equality, which tends to override consequentialist considerations. Specifically, we find that a large majority supports a proportional allocation regime, whereby asylum seekers would be allocated proportional to each country’s capacity, over the current status quo policy under the Dublin Regulation. This majority support is weakened but persists even when citizens are made aware that moving to proportional allocation would increase the number of asylum seekers allocated to their own country. These findings suggest citizens care not only about the consequences of international policy but also about the inherent fairness of its institutional design, and they present a potential pathway toward reform of the European asylum system that would be agreeable at both the international and domestic level.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Authors
Kirk Bansak
Jens Hainmueller
Dominik Hangartner
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs


The United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union this summer promises to fundamentally alter the political and economic future of the UK and the rest of the European Union.

Christophe Crombez, Senior Research Scholar at The Europe Center, and Nick Bloom, Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow at SIEPR, explored the short-term and long-term consequences of Brexit and the future of the UK's relationship with Europe at a recent panel discussion titled "Brexit: What's Next for the UK and Europe."   Ken Scheve, Professor of Political Science and the Director of The Europe Center, moderated the event. 

To listen to the discussion in its entirety, please visit our YouTube Channel.

All News button
1
Subscribe to Migration and Citizenship