Suchergebnisse

Research has frequently remarked on the conceptual overlap of racial versus ethnic categories at the macro-level, as well as on individual-level inconsistencies across multiple dimensions of race. Less research has focused on the interpersonal negotiation of racial self-classification and identity claims-making, or on the norms that govern racial appraisal. This study uses a case at the boundaries of the Hispanic category to ask: what norms of self-classification and social appraisal do interlocuters draw on in their interpretation of ethnic categories? I answer this question using a unique dataset of posts from a college admissions forum, in which prospective applicants ask, "Am I Hispanic?" Findings reveal that ancestry forms the most rigid boundary, though interlocuters debate whether ancestry is biological or cultural. Cultural identity is also necessary, though more loosely defined. Specific, noninstitutionalized traits, such as phenotype, language, and surname, are considered neither necessary nor sufficient. Findings highlight the enduring primacy of ancestry and the importance of social appraisal in the college application context.

If preferences on immigration policy respond to facts, widespread misinformation poses an obstacle to consensus. Does factual information about immigration indeed affect policy preferences? Are beliefs about immigration's societal impact the mechanism through which factual information affects support for increased immigration? To address these questions, we conducted an original survey experiment, in which we presented a nationally representative sample of 2,049 Americans living in the United States with facts about immigrants' English acquisition and immigrants' impact on crime, jobs, and taxes—four domains with common misperceptions. Three of these factual domains (immigration's impact on crime, jobs, and taxes) raise overall support for increased immigration. These facts also affect beliefs that are directly relevant to that information. Moreover, those beliefs mediate the effect of factual information on support for increased immigration. By contrast, information about English acquisition affects neither policy preferences nor beliefs about immigration's impact. Facts can leverage social cognitions to change policy preferences.

Whereas Australia has pursued a skills-based migration policy, the United States has privileged family-based migration. The key contrast between these migration regimes provides a rare test of how national immigration policy shapes immigrant selection and integration. Does a skills-based immigration regime result in a more select group of Asian immigrants in Australia compared to their counterparts in the United States? Are Asian immigrants more integrated into their host society in Australia compared to the United States? Focusing on four groups of Asian immigrants in both countries (Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Vietnamese), this article addresses these questions using a transpacific comparison. Despite Australia's skills-based immigration policy, we find that Asian immigrants in Australia are less hyper-selected than their counterparts in the United States. Asian immigrants in Australia also report worse labor market outcomes than those in the United States, with the exception of Vietnamese—a refugee group. Altogether, these findings challenge the conventional wisdom that skills-based immigration policy not only results in more selected immigrants, but also positively influences their integration into the host society.