From Immigrant to Citizen

Speakers: Irene Bleomraad, Harvard University; Greta Gilbertson, Fordham University; Audrey Singer, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Carnegie Endowment’s International Migration Program hosted a Roundtable Discussion, "From Immigrants to Citizen? Naturalization Decisions in Canada and the United States". The Policy Roundtable brought together authors of two sociological studies to discuss their findings. Audrey Singer of CEIP and Greta Gilbertson of Fordham University presented an in-depth case study of an extended family of Dominican immigrants in New York City. Irene Bloemraad of Harvard University compared naturalization trends among Portuguese immigrants in Boston and Toronto.

Douglas Klusmeyer of CEIP opened the discussion by introducing the question of why immigrants naturalize—as he pointed out, a deceptively simple question to pose. Difficulties in answering this question are due to the complexities involved in the naturalization process, such as immigrants’ different inclinations to invest in their host society. Incentives to naturalize in order to gain welfare benefits instead of for nobler reasons, such as love of country, are feared by some observers. Research suggests that reasons for naturalizing today are no less pragmatic than they have been in the past. Recent studies indicate that immigrants who maintain close ties with their countries of origin are inclined to naturalize; whereas, immigrants preserving closer ties with their host society are not. Following introductions, the authors made brief presentations on their research, summarized below.

Irene Bloemraad of Harvard University, presented a paper on the findings in the initial stage of her Ph.D dissertation, "Political Culture, State Institutions, Ethnic Organizations, and Immigrant Naturalization: Lessons drawn from a Canadian-U.S. Comparison." Little research has examined the political incorporation of immigrants; moreover, few studies have focused on citizenship across "New World" countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). Bloemraad’s study compares naturalization patterns in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the study uses Census data and qualitative evidence to compare the naturalization patterns of Portuguese immigrants in the state of Massachusetts and the province of Ontario.

Bloemraad’s central argument is that a state’s attitude toward citizenship and immigrants and the support a state provides to ethnic organizations are likely to significantly affect the propensity of newcomers to naturalize. Canada has a policy of multiculturalism—a top down approach. On the other hand, the US utilizes a more bottom up approach and expects grassroots organizations mobilize on their own, with minimal support from the state. According to Bloemraad’s research, Canada’s top down approach appears to be relatively more successful in encouraging naturalization. Recent cutbacks in government services and benefits, however, have had contradictory effects in Canada and the US, as result of different patterns of incorporation. In Canada, cuts in services have led to organizational dissolution and possible adverse effects on citizenship acquisition; whereas, in the US, cutbacks have led local immigrant organizations to support and encourage naturalization. These findings imply that policy makers need to be more sensitive to how individual and group characteristics are influenced by and interact with political and institutional environments, in order to influence the process of acquiring citizenship.

Following Bloemraad’s presentation was a brief discussion about how to calculate cumulative naturalization rates, from the data presented.

The paper by Audrey Singer and Greta Gilbertson, which examines the contexts and conditions affecting immigrants’ views of and decisions about naturalization was presented next.

Audrey Singer, CEIP, began by describing the political and social context—a largely anti-immigrant one--in which the development of their study took place. Based on legislation and their experience with immigrant communities, the authors decided to look at the social process—how immigrants understood the costs and benefits of legislative changes and how they adjusted to them. Prior to their study, no data had existed to answer this question. The study examined federal laws, local community groups, and the family context within which immigrants understood and responded to legislative changes--in order to capture the complexity of the naturalization process. It utilized a case-study approach of an extended family of Dominican immigrants in New York City.

Greta Gilbertson of Forham University noted that the research was partly justified by practical reasons--her extensive contacts and observations in New York suggested that immigrants perceived changes in the legislation as a threat and that, even so, many immigrants eligible to naturalize had not. The Washington Heights neighborhood, in which data collection took place, has a high concentration of Dominican immigrants who have low rates of naturalization, high rates of poverty, and, traditionally, high rates of return to their home country. These factors, in the past, have discouraged the acquisition of citizenship. However, it was argued that the incentive structure was altered due to changes in the US social and political climate in the 1990s. Within this anti-immigrant context naturalization was "packaged" as an option for immigrants to safeguard full membership. The case study elucidates the complexity of naturalization as a social process, with social forces and individual circumstances bearing on an immigrants’ decision to become a citizen. The process was found to be fluid, as immigrants negotiate the meanings attached to US citizenship in order to conform to their views of themselves an their place in US society.

Discussion summary: The discussion that followed addressed the backlogs of citizenship applications in the US the mobility of the immigrant population, the requirements of naturalization, and the potential losing of some immigrants during the long application processes.

Gerri Ratliffe of the Immigration and Naturalization Service stated that there is "a lot of rhetoric" about people filing to become citizens and why they are not showing up for interviews. People say that immigrants are no longer interested in following through with the long application process because benefits are being restored, etc. She asked the presenters if they got "a sense that, now that benefits are being restored, people do not want to naturalize," and thus choose not to show up for INS interviews.

All three authors conferred that there has been a marked drop in applications and that the issue is not at "hot" as it was. But there was no evidence in their work and in the communities under study to confirm that immigrants who had applied for citizenship were turning down final interviews because they had lost interest in US citizenship. Oftentimes, immigrants seemed unable to complete the application process due to pragmatic reasons, such as the inability to translate mail from the INS.

Following this discussion, questions about the "midpoint" to assimilation concept and its implications were raised. "I really like the idea that naturalization is viewed as the ‘mid-point’ to the end goal of becoming an American," stated Ratliffe. She added that, "We have grabbed onto the midpoint concept by saying that citizenship acquisition is "one rung on the ladder" to becoming an American.

Peter Spiro of the Hofstra School of Law commented on the implications of the "midpoint" and "one rung on the ladder" concepts. He questioned if, because these concepts imply that citizenship is "a tool of assimilation", people who are not qualified to become citizens are attempting to naturalize. He further inquired if viewing citizenship as a tool of assimilation would lead the INS to "bend" or relax the naturalization rules.

To Gilbertson and Singer, Alexander Aleinikoff of CEIP raised the issue that the incorporation or assimilation of immigrants may not be a straight-line process, as implied by the concept of the "midpoint" of assimilation. He further suggested that a useful way to think about citizenship is terms of "a step function"—or, a qualitative "leap" which produces the sense of being an American citizen. "Through the practice of being a citizen, one becomes one¼ Similar to beginning in a new job. Similar to becoming a parent¼ .It might not be until 5 or 10 years after one becomes a parent that they really feel as if they are a parent. It’s the practice of citizenship that produces citizenship."

Mary Ann Larkin, an Independent Consultant, inquired about the degree to which the role of institutions is considered in the analysis of the naturalization process and, when there is "a big pull" from the community to naturalize citizens, how funding and support from institutions factor into the naturalization process.

More could be done to study the role of institutions, according to Gilbertson. She further noted that there was much evidence on the links between the INS and the community and their roles in naturalization. Bloemraad added that, in the US, there is a dynamic of the institutions saying to the community "tell US what you want and we’ll see what we can do." Noting how the papers seemed to compliment one another in their approach and substance, Deborah Meyers of CEIP requested that the authors comment on each other’s papers.

Gilbertson stated that what her study focused on was "grassroots" with the idea that the state and its institutions are a means to naturalization. "It’s the kind of model that Irene (Bloemraad) put in her paper and can be elaborated on because it’s a dynamic process."

"The papers are complimentary in the points we’re trying to convey," added Bloemraad. Ronald Cruz of the Portuguese American Leadership Council, complimented the studies by stating that they "play a valuable part" in developing an understanding of naturalization; however, he suggested that "people’s patterns might vary due to factors related to their areas of origin (within a country)." Regions of origin within Portugual, for example, might influence incentives to naturalize among the Portuguese immigrants under study. He further noted the limits of quantifying reasons to naturalize, "when reasons differ, especially among different Portuguese communities." Bloemraad noted that she planned to further study this issue—"the multiplicity of reasons" for naturalizing.

Mark Hetfield of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society stated that the presenters did a good job in comparing eligibility for citizenship; however, he was curious to know about benefits, noting that some would like to see more delivery of benefits to immigrants. He also asked how "negative and positive experiences with the INS" affected the tendency of immigrants to complete the citizenship application process.

Bloemraad responded by describing how benefits, such as Medicare, were provided, and how job opportunities and sponsorship play a role in providing benefits. She also stated that, according to recent survey data, experience with the INS seemed to be generally positive and suggested a change in application trends. Prior to 1996, immigrants’ experience with the INS was "so negative, that they would rather not deal with them". Bloemraad then added that the immigrants’ experience with state institutions, such as the INS, is likely related to following through with the application process. She noted the differences between the level of experience among immigrants in US and Canada, specifying that in Canada, immigrants tend to have more experience in dealing with the state and thus were likely to feel more comfortable in working with state institutions as they apply for citizenship.

"That is where the local level comes into play", in influencing immigrants’ experience with state institutions during the application process, noted Gilbertson. Local community organizations can provide services to assist in practical matters, such as filling out of application papers, etc., which is likely to influence inclinations to deal with state institutions, such as the INS.

Daniel Jean of the Embassy of Canada commented that as a Canadian listening, he was surprised to hear the word "assimilation", and noted that in Canada, "integration" and "settlement" were the terms used instead. These terms reflected the view that the incorporation of immigrants is a "progressing thing." The authors then briefly discussed a situation common to many Canadians in the US, such as news anchorman Peter Jennings, who do not choose to acquire US citizenship, but remain in the US for long period of time, build their careers in the US, and pay taxes in the US. Singer noted that time is an important factor that influences naturalization decisions. One can expect that the longer immigrants live in their host society, the more likely they are to become citizens in that society; however, a lot of immigrants who have remained in the US for long periods of time do not naturalize, even if they intend to do so. This situation also points to the issue of intentions versus behavior, which appears to exist in naturalization decisions. Often immigrants will state that they intend to naturalize but do not.

This issue was one of particular interest to Bloemraad, who mentioned that she planned to compare naturalization rates among Canadian citizens in the US with rates among US citizens in Canada. She concluded with an interesting note that many studies suggested that immigrants of a cultural background similar to that of their host country, such as Canadian immigrants in the US, tended to naturalize the least. Larkin questioned how this issue was affected by the relative ease and security of returning to countries of origin, among immigrants who are culturally similar to their host society. She then questioned the inverse: how feeling more separate from the host society--like second class citizens--might provide an incentive for immigrants to naturalize. Bloemraad then added that refugee naturalization rates would suggest the influence of state monetary support, as well as other forms of government intervention, on citizenship acquisition. The discussion ended with additional comments about the meaning of citizenship—as both a "status" and "practice."

The question of whether citizenship is more of a practice than a status was raised. It was suggested that, over time, the practice of citizenship leads to the status. On the other hand, the status can produce the practice of being a US citizen. Aleinikoff specified that acquiring the status of citizenship "affects the way you see the world" and "produces a set of practices", based on citizenship’s meaning. Klusmeyer concluded the Policy Roundtable by thanking the group for the thoughtful discussion.