1

Paper 180­2007

ATTITUDES TOWARD IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES TOWARD A STRUCTURAL APPROACH

Michael Sobczak, University of Illinois – Urbana­Champaign, Champaign, IL

ABSTRACT Immigration has recently become an important national issue due in large part to the rise in numbers of

immigrants entering the United States (starting around 1965), the shift in the national origins of immigrants, and wage stagnation and economic restructuring occurring as immigrants arrive. In many ways, the recent American response to immigration can be characterized as negative. These social trends underpin my overarching research question: What factors influence attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy today? The major weakness of prior research in addressing this question has been its failure to recognize that attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy are not static across the United States. Immigrants settle and impact different locales in different ways. Here I fill this crucial gap in the literature by providing an understanding of the manner in which local structural factors shape Americans’ attitudes. Using a survey design, I rely primarily on a large cross­sectional nationally representative survey. Multilevel modeling is used to analyze the hierarchical structure of the data. I examine five dimensions of social structure: residential, population, economic, community, and regional structure. Results show each dimension in part explains Americans’ views toward immigrants and/or immigration.

Previous literature and prior research suggests increased intergroup association results in increased competition, which thereby results in higher levels of animosity toward out­groups and policies pertaining to them. Findings here only partially support this hypothesis. Support for immigration restrictions is found to rise relative to the local area proportion of whites living below the poverty level. Evidence for the competing hypothesis is more substantiated. Structural conditions fostering increased intergroup association with Asians is found to have a liberalizing effect on attitudes toward immigrants. Furthermore, residents of central city areas (a structural characteristic also fostering intergroup association) exhibit the lowest level of support for immigration restrictions. Curiously, residents of the South exhibited heightened levels of anti­immigrant and anti­immigration attitudes relative to residents of the Southwest and other regions of the U.S.

INTRODUCTION In my study I focus on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Immigration has

become a crucial national issue due in large part to the sharp rise in numbers of immigrants entering the United States beginning around 1965, the shift in the national origins of immigrants, and wage stagnation and economic restructuring occurring as immigrants arrive (Bean and Stevens, 2003). In many ways, the recent American response to immigration can be characterized as negative. Media coverage has reinforced negative stereotypes of today’s immigrants (Santa Ana, 1999) and a number of political organizations have placed responsibility for a range of social ills on immigrants and their descendants (Freeman, 1997; Muller, 1997; Pettigrew, 1998). Moreover, there has been strong populist support for anti­immigrant legislation (Carroll, 2005; Lapinski et al., 1997; NPR, 2004), including attempts to restrict immigration (FAIR, 2006), limit public benefits for immigrants (e.g. 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), cut bilingual education programs, and make English the official language of the United States (US English, 2006). These social trends underpin my overarching research question: What factors influence attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy today?

While a sizeable body of research has examined the factors that account for attitudes toward immigration, existing studies have predominately focused on individual level dimensions such as social psychological and socio­ demographic factors (Chandler and Tsai, 2001; Citrin et al., 2001; Pantoja, 2006; Wilson, 2001). In contrast, very little work has assessed the impact of local structural conditions on shaping public attitudes. Moreover, research examining the effect of local structural conditions on public attitudes has largely focused on just one dimension of social structure: population structure (i.e. out­group size) (Taylor, 1998; Stein et al, 2000). Local structural conditions are a critical dynamic to examine because immigrants settle and impact different locales in different ways. For instance, the amount, type, and intensity of competition that occurs between Americans and immigrants widely vary across locales (Bean and Stevens, 2003; Bean et al., 1999; Newman, 2003). It is therefore reasonable to expect that attitudes on immigration will be impacted accordingly. Yet, previous researchers have implicitly assumed that attitudes on immigration are evenly distributed across the country, which is a shortcoming that has hindered us from better understanding the underlying sources of anti­immigrant attitudes.

My research will address this lacuna with a framework that directly questions how local structural factors shape American public opinion. Using a model derived from Blau’s theory of social structure (Blau, 1977), I examine five dimensions of social structure, which include: residential, population, economic, community, and

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

2

regional structures. My framework also incorporates theories of group threat, racism, and self­interest in order to control for psychological and socio­demographic dynamics that have been examined in prior research. Thus, my approach provides a foundation to understand how social structure directly shapes public opinion alone, and how social structural factors condition the impact of individual­level dynamics. The later aspect is particularly important because the gross effects at the individual level may be quite contingent upon local context. Since past research has predominately investigated the impact of individual level dynamics alone, current understanding of these influences may be biased or inaccurate.

IMPORTANCE AND CONTRIBUTION The significance of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy has multiple

dimensions. First, hundreds of hate crimes are committed every year on the basis of national origin (FBI, 2004; APA, 2004). Knowledge of the strongest predictors of anti­immigrant dispositions could direct policies that would deter many such hostilities. Second, in contrast with previous immigration waves that had risen and then largely tapered off, immigration today has likely become a permanent structural feature of U.S. society (Massey, 1995). The permanence of this social phenomenon means the issues around anti­immigration sentiment are not likely to disappear in the foreseeable future, making it critical that the problem be addressed now. Third, although individuals with negative attitudes toward immigrants may not act on their attitudes (e.g. by lashing out at immigrants), recent research shows that self­reported attitudes relate to behavior (Dovidio et al., 1997). Therefore, the prevalence of negative attitudes surrounding immigration may reflect the prevalence of behavior directed at immigrants as well. Lastly, immigration since 1965 has converted the U.S. from a largely biracial society (with the exception of certain regional areas) into a multi­racial and multi­ethnic society (Bean and Stevens, 2003). For that reason, public perception of immigrants and immigration is reflective of Americans’ views on multiculturalism and diversity.

My research contributes to the literature on intergroup beliefs and attitudes in important ways. First, my study will provide a systematic understanding of the importance of social structure in shaping attitudes in the context of the United States. This is particularly imperative in the contemporary era as the social structure of regions, cities, and rural areas within the U.S. continue to change dramatically (e.g. job restructuring, secondary migration, etc.) (Frey, 2002, 2000; Kandel and Cromartie, 2004; Schmid, 2003; Suro and Singer, 2002). As a result, attitudes are expected to change, but without prior knowledge of the way in which social structure influences attitudes, we will be unaware of how attitudes may be impacted. Second, results provide insight into the way social structure may influence immigration attitudes in other national contexts or how attitudes may vary over time. In addition, findings offer insight into the role social structure might play in other intergroup processes such as racist beliefs and attitudes. Lastly, by anchoring measures in theory and modeling structural, psychological (e.g. prejudice, group threat), as well as socio­demographic (self­interest) factors, a more comprehensive assessment can be made about the relative explanatory power of each theory with regard to Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Such an approach will thereby go beyond existing research and further our understanding of the manner in which various factors influence Americans’ attitudes on this critical phenomenon.

THEORY OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE Structure is defined in very broad, abstract terms by many sociological theorists. Spencer (1882) and

Durkheim (1933) compared society to a living organism which has tissue and organs that are interrelated and function together in order to sustain the life of the organism. As an organism has these parts that are interrelated and function together, so does society. The interrelated parts of society comprise what these sociological theorists consider structure. Blau (1977) conceptualizes the component “parts” of social structure as groups or classes of people where the interrelationship among the “parts” are the social relations of people in different groups. Therefore, Blau’s social structure refers to “population distributions among social positions along various lines— positions that reflect and affect people’s role relations and social associations. To speak of social structure is to speak of social differentiation among people (Blau, 1977: 3).” In sum, social structure impacts intergroup relations in important ways. Even if people have no in­group preferences, structural constraints can lead them to primarily interact with people in their own group and will likely shape their preferences as such in the long run.

Blau (1977) provides a detailed framework regarding the several ways social structure impacts intergroup relations. Several of these postulates are particularly vital to understanding the influence of social structure on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. To start, one of the most important components of Blau’s theory of social structure is group size and distribution (form of heterogeneity). Blau argues that the larger the proportion make­up of the minority group (at a given geographic level), the more frequent the majority groups association with the minority group will be. In applying this property to the study of native born­­foreign born intergroup relations, it would be assumed that as the ratio of native­born to foreign­born persons decreases in a given locale, the amount of association the native­born population has with the foreign­born population increases. Increased intergroup association translates into increased intergroup competition, which is argued to increase stereotypes and other negative views toward members of the out­group (Quillian, 1995). In the United States, the

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

3

group size of immigrants, the historical legacy of immigration, and the recent immigrant growth rate all vary by locale and region (Frey, 2002; Suro and Singer, 2002). As a result, the degree that native­born Americans compete or have a chance to compete with immigrants in economic and social aspects is therefore likely to widely vary by locale and region. Another important component here is the rate of growth of the foreign­born population. In locales where the foreign­born population increases substantially, intergroup association and competition between foreign­born and native­born persons will ultimately be on the increase, thereby making it an important factor to consider particularly due to the uneven settlement of immigrants across the United States.

However, the linear relationship between population structure and intergroup association does not always hold as other attributes often run “interference” (Blau, 1977). For example, physical propinquity (or segregation) can either act as a major deterrent or actually increase intergroup association, even without in­group preferences on the part of majority group members. The more integrated groups are residentially, the higher the level of intergroup association and potential for intergroup conflict. In the United States, the degree that immigrants are residentially segregated and isolated from the native­born population varies greatly by locale. Bean, Van Hook, & Fossett (1999) found that the larger the immigrant enclave and the more segregated immigrants were from natives, the more natives prosper as immigrants take up occupations in their own economic niche separate from the native­ born. Such residential patterns therefore lessen the amount of actual competition between immigrants and the native­born, which would presumably result in more liberal attitudes on immigration.

Another important postulate produced by Blau is that of the relationship between population size (and population density) and intergroup association. Blau (1977) argues the probability of intergroup association and conflict increases with population size and population density. Since more urbanized places attract diverse peoples and funnel them into one area, increased chance of association with others in an urbanized context results in increased intergroup association and conflict.

Lastly, the inequality dimension of Blau’s theory of social structure is important to understanding the impact of local area economic structure on intergroup association and competition. According to Blau (1997), as income inequality increases, individuals are more likely to interact with others of a different economic standing. Applying this to majority­minority intergroup relations, this suggests the greater the inequality experienced by members of the majority group, the more likely they are to associate with others of a different socio­economic background. Since minority group members on average have a lower socio­economic standing than the majority group, higher levels of income inequality experienced by members of the majority group translate into increased intergroup association and competition between majority and minority group members. Moreover, Quillian (1996) argues that poorer economic conditions increase competition for scarce resources, thereby leading to higher levels of fear that “in­group” members’ economic advantage will be damaged through competition with the “out­group”. In applying this property to the study of native born­­foreign born intergroup relations, increased intergroup association and competition will occur in areas where the economic status of native­born Americans is low.

HYPOTHESES Overall, I expect to find that the more structural conditions foster intergroup association and competition,

the more negative views will be with regard to attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Local structural conditions fostering increased intergroup association and competition are locales where the: (1) proportion of the immigrant population is substantial, (2) local immigrant population is growing at a fast pace, (3) immigrants and natives live in residentially integrated neighborhoods, (4) economic position of the native­born is precarious, (5) context is more urbanized, and (6) regional area has a higher concentration of immigrants.

Although not the focus of my study, individual level measures of socio­demographics and psychological factors are implemented as controls. I expect to find heightened levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti­immigrant views among individuals exhibiting high levels of prejudice and group threat and among those with low socio­economic status.

DATA AND METHODS I rely primarily on the 2000 General Social Survey (GSS) (Davis et al., 2003), a large cross­sectional

nationally representative survey. The 2000 GSS includes an exceptional array of multiple questions that focus broadly on public opinion with regard to immigrants and current immigration policy, and includes a variety of items that reflect various dimensions of racism, group threat, and self­interest. Respondents in the survey are linked to one of a 100 different sampling areas (“local areas”) across the United States, a feature that is rarely available for attitudinal data. Using 2000 Census data (SF 1, 3, 4; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), I have created measures of social structure for each “local area”. Due to the nationally representative nature of the survey, results will accurately reflect contemporary American views toward immigrants and immigration policy. Together, these features of the 2000 GSS provide an exceptional basis to examine public opinion on immigration and assess my theoretical framework. Sample sizes for the two dependent variables are N=975 (attitudes toward immigrants) and N=943 (attitudes toward immigration policy). Metropolitan Statistical Areas, clusters of non­metro counties, and pairs of counties make up what is termed as “local”. Roughly 2/3 of local areas are Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

4

SAMPLE POPULATION My research specifically focuses on the attitudes of native­born, non­Hispanic white Americans. There are

several reasons I take this approach. First, I choose to exclude foreign­born respondents because my research centers on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Second, I expect racial and ethnic differences to exist with regard to public opinion on immigration. For example, I expect a cultural affinity to exist for many residents of Latino and Asian ancestry when it comes to issues surrounding immigration since most immigrants come from Latin America and Asia. Third, social structural circumstances are likely to vary quite substantially across racial and ethnic groups. For example, segregation levels between white Americans and immigrants will differ from segregation levels between African Americans and immigrants. It is therefore necessary to disaggregate by race and ethnicity in order to eliminate such confounding effects. However, adequate sample size becomes an issue when disaggregating by race and ethnicity. Only the non­Hispanic white sub­sample is sufficiently large enough to conduct a multilevel analysis assessing the impact of social structure on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

CONCEPTS, OPERATIONALIZATION, AND MEASUREMENT – DEPENDENT VARIABLES Americans’ contemporary intergroup relations with immigrants are examined in the form of attitudes

toward immigrants and immigration. “Attitudes toward immigrants” calls for an assessment of attitudes toward immigrants themselves, while “attitudes toward immigration” calls for an assessment of immigration policy. So we are dealing with views of people versus views of policy. An index is compiled for each dependent variable.

Paralleling prior research, I operationalize “attitudes toward immigration policy” as public opinion pertaining to whether immigration levels should be decreased, left the same, or increased (see Citrin et al, 1997; Burns and Gimpel, 2000). Three separate items will be used to measure attitudes toward immigration policy. The first item states “do you think the number of immigrants from foreign countries who are permitted to come to the United States to live should be increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot?” The other two items are very similar in content, but simply refer to immigration from a specific world region (Latin America or Asia) rather than immigration from “foreign countries”. High scores indicate respondents’ preference for reduced immigration levels. To assess measurement error, a measure of scale reliability was administered, which is based on internal consistency, the extent to which the individual items that constitute a test correlate with one another or with the test total (Hatcher, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha results indicate that these three items are a very reliable measure (α = 0.94). A mean summed index was created for the three items where respondents answered at least two of the three questions.

The second dimension of Americans’ intergroup relations with immigrants, Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants, has rarely been examined by itself. I address this shortfall by modeling attitudes toward immigrants separately from other related topics. “Attitudes toward immigrants” is operationalized here as attitudes toward the perceived impact immigrants have on crime rates, job loss, and national unity in the United States. The three items used as measures ask respondents “What do you think will happen as a result of more immigrants coming to this country? Is each of the possible results very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not likely at all? (a) Higher crime rates?, (b) People born in the U.S. losing their jobs?, (c) Making it harder to keep the country united?” These items tap common assertions of immigrant characteristics and are argued to be strong theoretical measures of attitudes toward immigrants. An assessment of scale reliability (α = 0.78) empirically confirmed their theoretical cohesiveness. A mean summed index was formed by averaging scores among respondents who answered at least two of the three items. High index scores indicate an elevated level of negative attitudes toward immigrants.

Although attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward immigration policy have notable differences, they also have notable similarities and are therefore argued to be two separate dimensions of the same underlying construct: native­born and foreign­born intergroup relations. Confirmatory factor analysis results support this argument. Findings indicate that both sets of items are in fact different from one another thereby constituting separate dimensions. Yet, at the same time both are very similar to one another, thereby constituting two dimensions of the same underlying construct.

CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: LATINO AND ASIAN AMERICANS AS THE “OUT­GROUP” Although my study focuses on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy in the United States,

the independent variables I introduce treat “Latinos and Asians” as the out­group instead of “immigrants”. There are many reasons I take this approach. First, it is important to point out that native­born/foreign­born status is not a visible characteristic. As a result, Americans are unable to differentiate immigrants from themselves on immigration status alone. Instead, other “clues” are used by Americans to differentiate immigrants from themselves whether such differentiating characteristics accurately do so or not. Race, ethnicity, and language are commonly used differentiating traits, despite the inaccuracies that result when such traits are used. For example, being “Asian or Latino” has in part become synonymous with being “immigrant”. As a result, it is often assumed that persons of Latino or Asian ancestry are foreign regardless of whether they are third generation or first generation (Zentella, 1997). Therefore, creating independent variables with “Asians and Latinos” as the out­group captures those commonly viewed as “immigrants” as well as those constituting the bulk of the immigrant population.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

5

CONCEPTS, OPERATIONALIZATION, AND MEASUREMENT – SOCIAL STRUCTURE Very little work has assessed the impact of local structural conditions on shaping public attitudes (Taylor,

1998). Measures used in previous studies included racial and ethnic contextual variables at the local level (e.g. Taylor, 2000), and country level (e.g. Quillian, 1995), to approximate levels and conditions of group competition. The use of these measures is problematic because they only reflect a single dimension of social structure. In this study, I address this deficiency and introduce measures for five dimensions of social structure, which include: residential, population, economic, community, and regional structures.

I evaluate residential structure with measures of residential segregation and residential isolation. Data originate from the 2000 Census Summary File 1. Details for residential dissimilarity (D) and residential isolation (P) are as follows:

) ) / ( ) / ( ( * ) 5 . 0 ( 1

∑ =

− = n

i i i Y y X x D ∑

=

= n

i i i i t y Y y P

1 )) / ( * ) / ((

where: xi = Number of Latinos (or Asians) in Census tract i, yi = Number of non­Hispanic whites in Census tract i, X = Total number of Latinos (or Asians) in total area (e.g. MSA). Y = Total number of non­Hispanic whites in total area (e.g. MSA). n = Number of census tracts in total area. ti = Total population of census tract i,

For the residential dissimilarity index, values range from 0 to 1, which conceptually represents the proportion of non­Hispanic whites that would have to change their location of residence in order to achieve an even residential distribution with Latinos (or Asians). The residential isolation index ranges in values from 0 to 1 and indicates that the average non­Hispanic white lives in a neighborhood where (P*100)% of the population is non­ Hispanic white. Both measures capture separate dimensions of residential segregation (Massey and Denton, 1988). The dissimilarity index captures the degree of evenness in the residential distribution of two groups, while the isolation index captures the degree of residential isolation that an average member of a group experiences. Therefore, a group may be unevenly distributed across a given area, but at the same time have a fair amount of contact with other groups (Acevedo­Garcia, 2000: 1153) as the average member of a given group may not be residentially isolated to an extreme degree.

Following prior research, population structure is measured with contextual variables representing the percent make­up of Latinos and Asians at the local level. In addition, I introduce a second dimension of population structure with measures that account for the rate of change in the local area Latino and Asian population between 1990 and 2000 (e.g. percent Latino in 2000 minus percent Latino in 1990). Following Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure, economic structure is an important structural characteristic that can heavily condition intergroup conflict. I measure economic structure with an index reflecting the natural log of the percent of the local non­Hispanic white population that is living below the poverty level.

I measure community structure with a variable consisting of the following categories: (a) urban, (b) suburban, (c) other urban, and (d) other rural. Three dummy variables are created with “urban” as the reference category. Lastly, I operationalize region into 3 categories: (a) Southwest, (b) South, and (c) all other regions. The Southwest is the region experiencing the bulk of recent immigration and therefore constitutes a separate category. Although the Southern region of the U.S. does not receive the bulk of recent immigration, there are two reasons it is operationalized as a separate category. First, there has been a substantial influx of immigrants to that region since 1990 (Frey, 2002). Second, there has been a historical legacy of racial exclusion in the South (Fossett and Kiecolt, 1989), which will likely play a discernable factor since most immigrants are racial and ethnic minorities. Dummy variables are created for Southwest and South, while the “all other” region grouping is used as the reference category. All structural level variables are uncentered.

CONCEPTS, OPERATIONALIZATION, AND MEASUREMENT – PREJUDICE, GROUP THREAT, AND SELF­INTEREST There are three dimensions of prejudice that are operationalized in this study. All dimensions reflect the

modern nature of prejudice in U.S. society today. Contemporary stereotypes is operationalized as the degree to which native­born Americans view Asians and Latinos as culturally inferior in regard to their family values, work­ ethic, and intelligence. Perceived societal contribution is operationalized as the extent to which native­born Americans view Asians and Latinos as making contributions to U.S. society. Lastly, social distance is operationalized as the extent to which native­born Americas are willing to interact with Asians and Latinos. Since the majority of today’s immigrants are Asians and Latinos, both groups will be the focus for operationalization and measurement. Since blacks do not constitute substantial proportions of immigrants, measures of prejudice against them will be created and compiled separately. A mean summed index is created for each dimension of prejudice. Scale reliability for each index was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. High index scores reflect high prejudice levels.

Perceived group threat is operationalized here as the degree to which native­born, non­Hispanic whites

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

6

view: (a) non­English languages as a threat to the dominance of English in U.S. society; and (b) perceived numeric threat that Asians and Latinos pose to the United States. High scores signify a high level of perceived threat.

Self­interest is defined here in terms of economic competition. Two separate measures are introduced in an attempt to accurately capture the segment of the U.S. population that is most likely to compete with immigrants. The first measure, respondents’ occupation, is split into five categories consisting of four dummy variables and a reference category. Categories include: (a) Not in the Labor Force, (b) Service, (c) Sales and Office, (d) Blue Collar, and (e) Managerial & Professional – reference category. The second measure of self­interest, respondents’ income, is split into 5 categories ($0­20K; $20K­40K; $40K­60K; $60K­90K; 90+K) and used as a continuous variable.

Standard demographic controls are introduced into the analysis as a way to control for possible confounding effects. For gender, a dummy variable was created with women as the reference category. Respondent’s age is entered as a continuous variable. Highest education degree earned is a continuous variable consisting of five categories: less than high school, high school, associate’s degree, undergraduate degree, graduate degree. All individual level variables are uncentered with the purpose to better test proposed theories.

MIXED LINEAR MODEL The method that I choose to analyze the hierarchical nature of the data structure at hand is the mixed

linear model approach. The advantage of the mixed model approach is that it takes into account and adjusts for situations where data is grouped into natural or imposed clusters with observations in the same cluster tending to be more alike than observations in different clusters (Allison, 1999). My data is such that respondents are nested in Population Sampling Units (i.e. local geographic areas). With respondents nested in geographic areas, we therefore expect that respondents in the same geographic area are more similar to one another than respondents in different geographic areas. Adjusting for this clustering effect is essential to produce reliable estimates and accurate hypothesis testing (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 1995). The use of ordinary least squares regression analysis to analyze clustered data could produce faulty results for the following reasons: (1) treating observations as though they are independent and thereby ignoring the clustering effect often will result in standard errors that are underestimated and consequently test statistics that are overestimated, thereby often resulting in Type I error (rejecting the hypothesis when it is in fact true); (2) ordinary least squares analysis will often produce coefficients that are inefficient.

There are two levels to the data structure, the individual respondent level (level 1), which is embedded in local geographic areas (level 2). I specify a random intercept and fixed coefficients model. Therefore, the intercept is allowed to vary across level 2 units, while level­1 coefficients are “fixed” across level­2 units meaning that the slopes for level­1 variables are not allowed to vary from unit to unit at level­2 and are assumed to have the same linear impact within each level­2 unit. The choice to treat these parameters as fixed is due to the small sample size within each level­2 unit, which would not allow for more complex estimation of random error variables. The general structure of the multilevel model is shown below. Models are estimated using the proc mixed procedure in SAS Version 8. Syntax for the proc mixed procedure can be found below. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) is utilized due to the numerous fixed coefficients modeled.

ij qij qj ij j ij j j ij r X X X Y + + + + + = β β β β ..... 2 2 1 1 0 where ri ~ N(0,σ 2 ) (1.1)

with j qj q j j j u W W W 0 0 2 02 1 01 00 0 .... + + + + + = γ γ γ γ β where u0j ~ N(0,τ00) (1.2)

with 10 1 γ β = j ….. 20 2 γ β = j .…. 0 q qj γ β = (1.3)

resulting in: ij

Q

q q j

Q

q qj q j r u W Yi + + + + = ∑ ∑

= = ) ( ) (

1 0 0

1 0 00 γ γ γ (1.4)

proc mixed data=Vars noclprint covtest; proc mixed data=Vars noclprint covtest class v; class v; Title 'Null Model'; Title 'Level 1 and Level 2 Vars Added'; model y = / solution; model y = x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 random intercept/sub=v; x18 x01 x02 x03 x04 x05 x06 x07 x08 x09 run; / solution ddfm=bw;

random intercept/sub=v; run;

RESULTS In Table 1, mixed linear regression results are reported for the analysis of attitudes toward immigrants and

immigration. Four models are reported for each dependent variable. Only the reduced structural level model is reported in order to negate potential issues of collinearity and data structure limitations (Bryk and Raudenbush,

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

7

1992) as well as to construct a more parsimonious portrait. A manual stepwise regression approach was used to produce the reduced structural level model. In Model 1, I report a “null model” to test the hypothesis that attitudes toward immigrants and immigration vary by locale. The level 2 variance component (τ00) for both models is highly significant leading me to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that attitudes toward immigrants and immigration vary significantly between local areas. Calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient shows that approximately 7.1% of variation in attitudes toward immigration can be explained by differences between local areas, while 5.4% of variation in attitudes toward immigrants is due to differences between local areas. In Model 2, I report the reduced structural level model with controls for measures of socio­demographics and self­interest. The control variables are entered to eliminate “compositional effects” that could potentially lead to invalid findings for structural level variables. Compositional effects comprise differences across local areas in terms of differing local distributions on individual characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, and occupation.

For the analysis of attitudes toward immigration, three of the five dimensions of social structure have a significant impact: regional, community, and economic structure. In the analysis of attitudes toward immigrants, residential, population, as well as regional structures are dimensions influencing views toward immigrants, showing some similarity and distinction in the way social structure impacts both dependent variables. The most distinguishing difference between the analyses is the differential effect of community structure. The type of community in which respondents reside curiously sustains a dominant role in predicting attitudes toward immigration, yet does not have an effect in predicting attitudes toward immigrants. Respondents residing in suburban, rural, and smaller urban communities all exhibited substantially higher levels of support for immigration restrictions than respondents residing in central city areas. This finding directly contradicts my hypothesis that central city residents have the highest level of support for immigration restrictions. Perhaps findings here are the result of residents outside of central city areas displaying an isolationist mentality in which they feel a need to insulate themselves from outsiders to preserve a homogeneous community and maintain their neighborhood in its current form. Edsall and Edsall (1991) addresses how this prevailing desire is reflected in white suburbia where its residents want to escape the problems of the central city and live apart from such areas. As a result, rural, smaller urban, and suburban residents may want immigration restricted because they fear immigrants will settle in their communities. On the other hand, community structure may not predict attitudes toward immigrants because the dependent variable calls on views concerning immigrants themselves and so feelings of “isolationism” are not conjured. Moreover, central city residents may view the cheap services provided by immigrants as a personal economic benefit resulting in their lower level of support for immigration restrictions.

Economic structure proved to be a strong determinant of attitudes toward immigration. Respondents residing in local areas where a substantial percentage of their co­ethnics live below the poverty level are more likely to support immigration restrictions. This effect persists even after controlling for individual level socio­economics, thereby confirming my hypothesis and coinciding with previous research (see Quillian, 1995). I argue the higher the percentage of whites living below the poverty level the more likely whites are to compete with immigrants, thereby translating into higher levels of support for immigration restrictions. Yet, this factor does not have a significant effect for models of attitudes toward immigrants. The demarcation in results inherently shows stronger support for the competition based hypothesis as it is more logical that residents of impoverished economic locales would have a stronger desire to limit additional competition from immigrants rather than express anti­immigrant views because immigration represents real competition.

The social structural dimension of population structure has an unanticipated effect on attitudes toward immigrants. Previous research utilizing contextual level factors indicate a positive relationship with increasing out­ group size relating to negative attitudes toward the out­group as well as policies pertaining to them (see Quillian, 1995, 1996; Taylor 2000; Stein et al., 2000; Fossett & Kiecolt, 1989). I anticipated a parallel relationship in my investigation of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Instead I find residents of fast growing Asian areas exhibiting more favorable views toward immigrants. This “liberalizing” effect of Asian context arises despite controls for individual and structural level economics. Results likely originate from the high socio­economic status of Asians Americans. Bobo and Massagli (2001) illustrate that the economic standing of an out­group has a strong impact on views toward the out­group with higher out­group socio­economic standing translating into more favorable views toward the out­group. A complementary explanation is that increased intergroup association can actually function as a means to break down group boundaries and stereotypes. The hypotheses that I’ve specified thus far treat increased intergroup association as a proxy for increased intergroup competition. Although this relationship undoubtedly holds, increased intergroup association and contact can also generate a positive effect by exposing groups to one another and thereby providing the basis for stereotypes to be refuted. Increased intergroup contact is theorized to break down stereotypes (see Allport, 1954) and prior research in part confirms this relationship (see Sigelman and Welch, 1993). Perhaps this is an example where the positive effects of increased intergroup association outweigh the negative effects. The higher economic standing of Asians coupled with an increase in intergroup context with Asians has likely resulted in the more favorable views toward immigrants among whites residing in fast growing Asian locales. Furthermore, prior research shows that out of all the nation’s major minority groups, whites most desired to have Asians as their neighbors (Charles, 2001). Such findings provide insight to this unexpected result. Curiously, despite Latin American nationals comprising the largest segment of the

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

8

U.S. foreign­born population, Latino contextual factors do not exhibit an effect. Moreover, population structure factors do not demonstrate an effect in the analysis of attitudes toward immigration.

Residential structure maintains a notable role in explaining attitudes toward immigrants. My initial hypothesis asserts that residents of highly segregated local areas are more likely to hold liberal attitudes toward immigrants and immigration due to lower levels of intergroup competition. However, findings indicate the opposite effect with residents of more segregated Asian­white local areas exhibiting higher levels of anti­immigrant attitudes. Perhaps the reason for this unexpected result is that higher levels of residential segregation translate into less frequent intergroup contact between whites and Asians. Paralleling results for population structure, intergroup contact with Asians appears to be a liberalizing force in terms of attitudinal formation toward immigrants. Increased contact with Asians appears to provide the basis for the break down of anti­immigrant stereotypes. Interestingly, residential structure did not play a role in predicting attitudes toward immigration.

Regional structure elicited the most consistent pattern. Southerners were significantly more likely to express support for immigration restrictions and were significantly more likely to record higher levels of anti­ immigrant attitudes than residents of other regions of the United States. This finding parallels previous research investigating anti­Black attitudes which showed Southerners tend to have higher levels of anti­Black sentiment even after controlling for individual level socio­demographics (see Quillian, 1996). Results provide evidence for my hypothesis that the “southern sub­culture of racism” has a strong generalized dimension, which carries over and applies to attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Results from Model 4 in part offers additional support for this contention as the introduction of measures of prejudice result in complete mediation in the analysis of attitudes toward immigrants and partial mediation in the analysis of attitudes toward immigration. A perplexing result is the non­effect of residence in the Southwest.

In models three and four, I introduce the socio­psychological dimensions: perceived group threat and prejudice. The addition of these variables has virtually no impact on the analysis of attitudes toward immigration as social structural factors are unaffected. However, the introduction of measures of prejudice resulted in a mediating effect for both regional and residential factors in the analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. Yet, the impact of these measures on attitudes toward immigrants cannot be discounted because their effects are channeled indirectly through various dimensions of prejudice.

CONCLUSION In my study I focus on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. While a sizeable

body of research has examined the factors that account for attitudes toward immigration, existing studies have predominately focused on individual level dimensions such as social­psychological and socio­demographic factors. In contrast, very little work has assessed the impact of local structural conditions on shaping public attitudes, which is a particularly critical dynamic to examine because immigrants settle and impact different locales in different ways. This study moves beyond such limitations by incorporating a framework that directly assesses how local structural factors shape American public opinion. Blau’s theory of social structure is drawn upon to include 5 dimensions of social structure: residential, population, economic, community, and regional structures. In addition, I control for socio­psychological and socio­economic factors examined in prior research.

Structural conditions fostering increased intergroup association are likely to result in both competition and cooperation. However, previous literature and research by and large indicates that increased competition and conflict outweigh the positive effects of increased intergroup contact. As a result, my hypotheses are developed with the contention that structural conditions fostering intergroup association will result in negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. However, findings here only partially support this hypothesis. Support for immigration restrictions is found to rise relative to the local area proportion of whites living below the poverty level. Evidence for the competing hypothesis is more substantiated. Structural conditions fostering increased intergroup association with Asians is found to have a liberalizing effect on attitudes toward immigrants. Furthermore, residents of central city areas (a structural characteristic also fostering intergroup association) exhibit the lowest level of support for immigration restrictions. Curiously, residents of the South exhibited heightened levels of anti­ immigrant and anti­immigration attitudes relative to residents of the Southwest and other regions of the U.S.

Moreover, I find social structure has a differential impact on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. In the case of attitudes toward immigration the effect of social structure is about “interests”. Higher levels of support for immigration restrictions is witnessed among residents of areas where poverty levels for whites is relatively high. This is an attempt to eliminate competition. Moreover, whites residing in non­central city areas appear to have an “isolationist” mentality in which they want their communities preserved. Support for immigration restrictions is a means to keep the number of immigrants in the U.S. at a controllable level, thereby lowering the possibility that immigrants will settle in their communities. In the case of attitudes toward immigrants, structural conditions fostering increased intergroup contact with Asians appear to be the driving factor. Apparently the positive effects of intergroup contact with Asians out­weight the negative effects of intergroup competition with Asians. Southern residence is the factor unifying both analyses with Southerners exhibiting higher levels of anti­ immigrant and anti­immigration attitudes.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

9

TABLE 1 Mixed Linear Models Predicting Support for: Immigration Restrictions (N=943) Anti­Immigrant Attitudes (N=975) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Intercept 3.639** 2.893** 2.306** 1.056** 2.834** 2.913** 2.254** 1.280** Socio­Demographics: Males ­0.009 ­0.025 ­0.052 ­0.002 ­0.026 ­0.045

Age 0.004* 0.002 ­0.002 0.002 ­0.000 ­0.003**

Degree (1=<HS...5=College Grad) ­0.144** ­0.115** ­0.068* ­0.169** ­0.131** ­0.098** Self Interest: Income (1=$0­19,999…5=$90,000+) 0.017 0.016 0.005 ­0.005 ­0.011 ­0.020

Occupational Categories: Not in Labor Force ­0.036 ­0.043 ­0.054 0.106 0.089 0.083

Service 0.100 0.067 0.061 0.083 0.040 0.048

Sales & Office 0.103 0.042 0.043 0.089 0.020 0.020

BlueCollar 0.227** 0.198* 0.119 0.117 0.091 0.030

Managerial/Professional [ref] Perceived Group Threat: Overestimate Perceived Asian Population 0.117 0.134 0.191* 0.204* Overestimate Perceived Latino Population 0.159 0.150 0.109 0.107 English Threatened by Immigrants 0.263** 0.162** 0.320** 0.247** Prejudice: Lack of Societal Contribution (Latinos, Asians) 0.306** 0.186** Negative Stereotypes (of Latinos, Asians) 0.021 0.002 Negative Stereotypes (of African Americans) 0.012 0.047 Greater Social Distance (from Latinos,Asians) 0.121* 0.116** Greater Social Distance (from Blacks) 0.086* 0.051 Regional Structure: Southwest (CA, TX, AZ) South (except TX) 0.262** 0.231** 0.149* 0.162** 0.124** 0.063

All Other Regions [ref] Community Structure: Suburban 0.332** 0.319** 0.323**

Small Urban 0.181* 0.177* 0.178*

Rural 0.326** 0.307** 0.262*

Central City [ref] Population Structure: LN Percent Latino LN Percent Asian Percent LatinoGrowth (1990­2000) Percent Asian Growth(1990­2000) ­0.111** ­0.098** ­0.071** Residential Structure: Residential Segregation (Latino­White) Residential Segregation (Asian­White) 0.006* 0.005* 0.004

Residential Isolation of NH Whites Economic Structure: LN Percent NH White Below Poverty 0.262* 0.270** 0.223*

Intercept (Level 2) 0.058** 0.0216 0.0136 0.0086 0.028** 0.0015 0.0001 0.0009 Residual (Level 1) 0.762** 0.711** 0.669** 0.603** 0.490** 0.446** 0.379** 0.340** BIC 2483.3 2432.5 2377.4 2295.8 2126 2046.5 1896.7 1816.4 AIC 2478.1 2427.2 2372.2 2290.6 2120.8 2041.3 1891.5 1811.1

* P<0.05; ** P<0.01 Source: 2000 General Social Survey; Census 2000 Summary Files 1,3,4

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

10

REFERENCES

Acevedo­Garcia, Dolores. 2000. “Residential segregation and the epidemiology of infectious diseases”. Social Science and Medicine 51 1143­1161.

Allison, Paul D. 1999. Logistic regression: Using The SAS System, Theory And Application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass., Addison­Wesley Pub. Co.

American Psychological Association Web site. 1998. “Hate crimes today: An age­old foe in modern dress”. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/. Accessed November 2004.

Bean, Frank D., and Gillian Stevens. 2003. America’s Newcomers And The Dynamics Of Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bean, F.D., J. Van Hook, and M. Fossett. 1999. “Immigration, spatial and economic change, and african american employment”. In Bean FD, Bell­Rose S, eds. Immigration and opportunity: race, ethnicity, and employment in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 31­63.

Blau, P.M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.

Bobo, L and M. Massagli. 2001. “Stereotyping and urban inequality” . In O’Connor, A., Tilly, C., & Bobo, L.D. (Eds.). Urban inequality: Evidence from four cities. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Bryk, Anthony S. and S.W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Burns, Peter and J.B. Gimpel. 2000. “Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy”. Political Science Quarterly 155, (2) 201­226.

Carroll, J. “American public opinion about immigration”. The Gallup Organization Web site. 2005. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=14785&pw=7/26/2005. Accessed July 27, 2005.

Chandler, C.R., and Y. Tsai. 2001. “Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: an analysis of data from the general social survey”. The Social Science Journal 38(2):177­188.

Charles, Camille Z. 2001. “Process of racial residential segregation”. In Urban inequality: Evidence from four cities. Pp. 217­271. O’Connor, A., C. Tilly, L.B. Bobo (Eds.). Russell Sage Foundation/New York.

Citrin, J., D.O. Sears, C. Muste, and C. Wong. 2001. “Multiculturalism in american public opinion”. British Journal of Political Science 31:247­275.

Citrin, J., D.P. Green, C. Muste, and C. Wong. 1997. “Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations”. The Journal of Politics, 59 (3) 858­881.

Davis, J.A., T.W. Smith, and P.V. Marsden. 2003. General social surveys, 1972­2002: [cumulative file] [computer file]. ICPSR version. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer], 2003. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter­university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2003.

Dovidio, J.F, K. Kawakami, C. Johnson, B. Johnson, and A. Howard. 1997. “On the nature of prejudice: automatic and controlled processes”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33:510­540.

Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The division of labor in society. Translated by George Simpson. New York: Free Press.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

11

Edsall, T.B., and M. Edsall. 1991. Chain Reaction. New York: Norton.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site. 2004. “Hate crime statistics”. Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

Federation for American Immigration Reform Web site. 2006. “About FAIR.” Available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_aboutmain. (March 2006).

Fosset, Mark A. and K.J. Kiecolt. 1989. “The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes”. Social Science Quarterly 70 820­835.

Freeman, G.P. 1997. “Immigration As A Source Of Political Discontent And Frustration In Western Democracies”. Studies in Comparative International Development 32(3):42­65.

Frey, W.H. 2002. “Census 2000 reveals new native­born and foreign­born shifts across U.S.”. Ann Arbor (MI): Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2002 August. Research Report No 02­520.

Frey, W.H. 2001. “Melting pot suburbs: a census 2000 study of suburban diversity”. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy; Census 2000 Series.

Goldstein, Harvey. 1995. Multilevel Statistical Models, Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold.

Hatcher, Larry. 1994. A step­by­step approach to using the sas system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.

Kandel, W., J. Cromartie. 2004. “New patterns of hispanic settlement in rural America”. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Rural Development Research Report Number 99.

Lapinski, J.S., P. Peltola, G. Shaw, and A. Yang. 1997. “The polls­trends: immigrants and immigration”. Public Opinion Quarterly 61:356­383.

Massey, D.S. 1995. “New immigration and ethnicity in the United States”. Population and Development Review 21(3):631­652.

Massey, Douglas S. & Nancy Denton. 1988. “The dimensions of residential Segregation”. Social Forces 67 281­ 315.

Muller, T. 1997. “Nativism In The Mid­1990’s: Why Now?” In Perea, JF, ed. Immigrants out! The new nativism and anti­immigrant impulse in the United States. New York: New York University Press; 105­118.

National Public Radio Web site. 2004, Sept. “Immigration in america.” Available at: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/polls/2004/immigration/. (December 2004).

Newman, C. 2003. “Impacts of hispanic population growth on rural wages”. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2003 September. Agricultural Economic Report Number 826.

Pantoja A. 2006. “Against the tide? Core american values and attitudes toward US immigration policy in the mid­ 1990’s”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32(3):515­531.

Pettigrew, T.F. 1998. “Reactions toward the new minorities of Western Europe”. Annual Review of Sociology 24:77­103.

Quillian, L. 1996. “Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward African­Americans”. American Journal of Sociology 102 (3) 816­860.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis

12

Quillian, L. 1995. “Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti­immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe”. American Sociological Review 60 586­611.

Santa Ana, O. 1999. “Like An Animal I Was Treated: Anti­Immigrant Metaphor In US Public Discourse”. Discourse and Society 10(2):191­224.

Schmid, C. 2003. “Immigration and asian and hispanic minorities in the new south: an exploration of history, attitudes, and demographic trends”. Sociological Spectrum 23:129­157.

Sigelman, Lee, and Susan Welch. 1993. “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black­White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes”. Social Forces 71 (3) 781­795.

Spencer, Herbert. 1882. The principles of sociology. London, Williams and Norgate.

Stein, Robert M., S.P. Post, and A.L. Rinden. 2000. “Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes”. Political Research Quarterly 53 (2) 285­303.

Suro, R, and A. Singer. 2002. “Latino growth in metropolitan america: changing patterns, new locations”. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Pew Hispanic Center; Census 2000 Survey Series.

Taylor, Marylee C. 2000. “The significance of racial context”. In Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America. Pp. 118­136. D.O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds). The University of Chicago.

Taylor, M.C. 1998. “How white attitudes vary with racial composition of local populations: numbers count”. American Sociological Review 63:512­535.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Census of Population and Housing, 2000 [United States]: Census 2000 Summary File 3[Computer File]. ICPSR Version. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Census [producer], Ann Arbor: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research[distributor]

US English Web site. 2006. “About U.S. English.” Available at: http://www.us­english.org/inc/. Accessed March 2006.

Wilson, T.C. 2001. “Americans’ views on immigration policy: testing the role of threatened group interests”. Sociological Perspectives 44(4):485­501.

Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. “The Hispanophobia of the official English movement in the US”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127 71­86.

CONTACT INFORMATION Michael Sobczak, Ph D Candidate University of Illinois – Urbana­Champaign Department of Sociology 326 Lincoln Hall; 702 S Wright St Urbana, IL 61801 sobczak@uiuc.edu

SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc. in the USA and other countries. ® indicates USA registration. Other brand and product names are trademarks of their respective companies.

SAS Global Forum 2007 Statistics and Data Analysis