Immigration: Settlement, Integration and Membership Institute for the Social Sciences at Cornell Theme Project Proposal February 2010

Download 175.29 Kb.
Size175.29 Kb.
  1   2   3

Immigration: Settlement, Integration and Membership

Institute for the Social Sciences at Cornell

Theme Project Proposal

February 2010

Team Leader: Michael Jones-Correa, Department of Government

Team Members:

Maria Cristina Garcia, Department of History

Douglas Gurak, Department of Development Sociology

Mary Katzenstein, Department of Government

Sharon Sassler, Department of Policy Analysis and Management


Immigration is a central component of the American experience, yet history shows that immigration also triggers questions and anxieties about the integration of newcomers, the terms of their inclusion, and national identity in the United States (Smith, 1997; King; 2000; Tienda, 2002; Hirschman, 2005; Huntington, 2004). The U.S. is currently in the midst of a renewed period of immigration, which began in the 1960s and has coincided with the transition from a manufacturing to a service economy, a period of rising wage inequality (Tienda and Mitchell, 2006; Levy, 1998; Danziger and Gottschalk, 1993), and more recently, population aging as the baby boom generation approaches retirement (Myers, 2007). Between 1960 and 2000, immigration (and immigrant fertility) not only added over 47 million people to the U.S. population, but also drove the ethnic diversification of the population. During the 1990s alone, over 14 million immigrants arrived to the United States, and the first decade of the 21st century is projected to add an additional 15 million, a new historical high (Meissner, et al., 2006).

The current wave of mass migration differs from earlier waves in three important ways that bear on the integration prospects of newcomers: (1) a change in source countries from Europe to Latin America and Asia; (2) a high share of undocumented among the foreign‐born; and (3) a shift in settlement patterns away from traditional gateways to nontraditional destinations. These changes have rekindled political debates about the costs and benefits of immigration, raising a myriad of theoretical, substantive, and practical questions about the settlement of recent arrivals, particularly those who settle in nontraditional destinations and their integration and inclusion as fully participating members of society in the United States.
These questions are both timely and important: they have been the subject of persistent debate both in the academy and outside it throughout American history, but, in the context of the current wave of immigration, are particularly salient today. It is likely, for instance, that the U.S. Congress will once again proceed with some attempt at reform of the immigration system before the 2010 elections. Whether this effort succeeds or fails depends in good measure on how legislators and interest groups address concerns and questions about immigrant settlement, integration and inclusion.
The proposed theme project cannot focus on all of the issues and questions around immigration: instead it highlights two sets of approaches: the first, on immigrant settlement and integration, particularly in new destination areas, and the second, on immigrant inclusion and membership, particularly with regard to permanent residence and social rights. This theme project builds on the institutional resources and expertise concentrated here at Cornell to focus on the unanswered questions suggested above: First, where and how is immigrant settlement occurring? How are contemporary patterns of immigrant settlement different from historical patterns and why? Why do settlement patterns differ across places and national origin groups? How are immigrant settlement and inclusion mediated by differences in immigrant status and institutional contexts? And second, how are new residents accorded social and political rights and membership? Once arrived, should migrants – documented and undocumented, immigrants and refugees—be treated as temporary residents or as potential citizens?
Settlement and Integration

How and where immigrants settle is a central question in immigration studies, with contributions from demography, sociology, and history. What is new is that immigration settlement is now more dispersed than it has ever been historically (Frey 2006). The geographic dispersal of the foreign‐born, and recent arrivals in particular, has not escaped the notice of social scientists. Social scientists have described the changing geographic distribution of the foreign-born population in the United States in some detail (e.g., see Leach and Bean, 2008; Massey and Capoferro, 2008; Card and Lewis, 2007; Zuñiga and Hernández‐León, 2005), and several recent social science volumes have assembled collections of case studies about specific places, industries and national origin groups (Gozdiak and Martin, 2005; Zuñiga and Hernández‐León, 2005; Massey, 2008; Singer, Hardwick and Brettell, 2008). What has been missing, however, is a broader theory of immigrant settlement. It is possible that the diversity of methods, foci, and locations studied has delayed any “meta‐synthesis” about the how and why of immigrant settlement, particularly settlement in nontraditional areas. This avenue of inquiry, however, has been significantly advanced here at Cornell through the work of scholars such as Gurak, Kritz and Lichter (see: Kritz and Gurak 2010; Kritz, Gurak and Lee 2009; Kritz and Gurak 2009, Kritz, Gurak and Lee 2008; as well as Lichter and Johnson 2009, 2006; Johnson and Lichter 2008). These authors have pioneered models of initial migration, and the determinants of immigrant streams to new receiving destinations, and of immigrant secondary migration. This theme project proposes to continue the study of immigrants’ settlement decisions, addressing questions of variation across time, place and by national origin group.

We expect that the elaboration of settlement processes will be illuminated as well by an exploration of immigrant integration. No aspect of immigration has been more studied than integration or assimilation, broadly defined as the process by which immigrants become a part of their host society (see Alba and Nee 2003; for overviews see Hirschmann, Kasinitz and DeWind 1999; Waters and Eschbach 1995; Hirchmann 1983). However, a major theoretical consideration is whether (and if so how) the changing demography of immigrant settlement away from the traditional gateways challenges conventional theories of assimilation, for example, by re‐defining intergroup relations (specifically, competition for shared resources) (McClain et al. 2006); by altering spatial dynamics (specifically, residential segregation and housing competition) (Cravey 2007); by lowering barriers to the inter‐regional mobility of labor; and/or by re‐fashioning established political alliances. Equally important are substantive questions about whether and in what ways the contexts of reception differ, such that integration is accelerated or retarded; whether migrant settlement patterns raise or lower residential segregation and social isolation; and what national, state and local circumstances increase or decrease the likelihood of antagonism toward immigrants.
Finally, both the newness of the immigrant geographic dispersal and the socioeconomic and institutional diversity of the places involved calls for a more systematic understanding of integration from the perspective of both immigrants and their host communities. The regulation of immigration is a federal responsibility, but state and local governments share administrative control over various resources that promote integration. For example, the federal government has jurisdiction over important prerequisites of integration, such as ease of acquisition of legal status, civil and political rights, and prospects for family reunification. Both federal and state authorities govern access to social benefits that serve as safety nets for immigrants, and states and local communities share responsibility for educational resources that are vital to socialize and integrate the children of immigrants (Marrow 2007; Bloemraad 2005; Jones-Correa 2005, 2006, 2008; Lewis and Ramakrishnan 2004). The proliferation of state legislation and local ordinances restricting access to social consumption services (e.g., education, medical care) and work for immigrants suggests that the distributional imbalances of costs and benefits are particularly evident in new immigrant destinations, which often lack the social infrastructure to facilitate integration of the foreign‐born present in the traditional gateways (Rodriguez, et al., 2007; Massey 2007).
Localities provide contexts for integration within which immigrants assimilate into their new country of residence – or not. Arguments regarding the extent to which immigrants attempt to “become Americans,” by shedding the distinctive traits brought from their country of origin (such as language, orientation towards education, as well as hard skills) and adapting the behaviors of long-term citizens of the United States have raged for nearly as long as our country has been a sovereign nation. Critics of immigration assert that contemporary migrants are not adapting as rapidly to life in the United States as did previous waves of immigrants (Borjas 2006). Those arriving in the United States over 100 years ago are often used as a yardstick to measure the progress of contemporary migrant groups (Borjas 2001). Such assertions overlook the diversity among immigrants of a hundred years ago, as well as how adaptation differed by region of arrival, as well as gender and race (or perceived race) (Perlmann, 2007; Sassler, 2006). Many factors affect the pathways by which the foreign-born and their children adapt to life in the United States, including their place of settlement, the selectivity of those migrating, their human capital was well as where they fit in the American racial hierarchy (Feliciano, 2006; Portes and Zhou 1993). How will children of today’s immigrants adapt? How does legal status—a factor with widely varying application among historical immigrants, but central to the experience of contemporary immigrants (Ngai 2005)—shape the integration of immigrants—and their children? And while much of the emphasis of late has focused on low-skilled immigrants, what of the sizable proportion of foreign-born who obtain entry to the United States because of their desired skills? Will their children continue on a path of education and upward mobility (Kasinitz et al. 2008; Alba and Nee 2003)?
Membership and Inclusion

As immigration to the United States increased steadily through the 1980s, there was an increasingly vociferous debate not only about the desirable levels of immigration, but also about the rights accorded to migrants once they arrived. The revamping of immigration laws in 1965 coincided with the expansion and consolidation of the (admittedly attenuated version of the) American welfare state. As a result of a series of administrative and judicial decisions the general policy became, almost by default, that permanent resident aliens received basically the same package of right and social services as citizens (Schuck and Smith 1985). By the late 1980s, however, there was a widespread perception that immigrants were abusing these rights and were particularly likely to take advantage of the welfare system (Borjas and Hilton 1996; Borjas and Trejo 1991).

Proposition 187, which was approved by voters in the state of California in 1994, was the first sign of the backlash against non-citizen rights. Proposition 187 was designed to significantly restrict taxpayer-supported benefits, including health, welfare and education, to undocumented immigrants. Federal courts blocked its implementation (McDonnell 1997; Lesher 1997), but in 1996 Congress modelled legislation—the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act— on the failed California proposition, significantly limiting eligibility for welfare and other public benefit programs. The legislation barred undocumented immigrants from access to all federal public benefit programs, and went beyond Proposition 187 in barring most legal permanent residents from participation in Social Security and Food Stamp programs, and in banning all new resident non-citizens from being entitled to federal means-tested programs like AFDC (Aid for Dependent Children) (Weiss 1998; Schuck 1997; Schmitt 1996). The message was that publicly-funded social services were not intended for non-citizens, even if these individuals resided permanently in the United States and contributed to local, state and federal coffers through the payment of sales, property and income taxes.
In the same year Congress also passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which catalyzed a process of immigrant criminalization through two separate legal instruments. First, the IIRIRA contained a provision requiring electronic tracking of each individual arriving in and departing from the United States, creating an underclass of undocumented migrants who were eligible, by their very presence, for deportation.  Second, the Act precipitated a rapid increase in deportations even among those who had been residing in the U.S. as permanent legal residents by re-defining the conditions for detention and deportation (Fragomen 1997; Langenfeld 1999; Morawetz 1999-2000). Between 1995 and 1996, removals rose by 19,000.  In the following two years, the numbers jumped to 44,000 and 58,000 respectively.  So-called criminal removals of legal permanent residents jumped from 4,500 in 1996 to 11,000 in 1997 (see Foster 1997-1998).  IIRIRA stipulated that anyone deported under these criminal regulations were ineligible for readmission to the United States indefinitely. In short, the IIRIRA defined a new set of conditions for membership for permanent legal residents, undocumented aliens, asylees and refugees alike.  The events of September 11, 2001 further complicated discussions of immigration and asylum matters, with concerns over national security often trumping humanitarian obligations (Cooper 2006-2007; Ramji 2001). The proposed Refugee Protection Act of 2001 (S. 1311), for example, designed to streamline adjudication and offer asylum applicants certain protections, stalled in Congress; and in the wake of 9/11, U.S. annual refugee quotas have gone half-filled.
Arguably, the legislation passed in 1996 marked a tectonic shift in U.S. immigration policy, shifting a long-standing stance toward immigrant rights and membership, and raising a number of critical theoretical and legal questions: What kinds of rights should non-citizen residents in the United States entitled to? Should refugees, asylees and undocumented workers be treated as potential citizens or simply be given temporary haven? (Morawetz 1999-2000; Ramji 2001). Since 1996 U.S. law has shifted toward the latter. Has the shift post 1996 marked an abandonment of liberal thinking about immigration or has the turn to a more punitive paradigm in fact deployed liberal constructs in newly restrictive ways?  Have discussions of ‘proportionality’ that date back to the liberal writings of Beccaria (1995 [1764]) been invoked or ignored in debates over crime and immigration?  Has the idea of a social contract – fundamental to liberal democracy – been reconfigured to focus less on social membership and more on legal accountability? 


Scholars working on questions of settlement and integration and those working on issues of membership and inclusion approach these issues from very different disciplinary starting points. The former are rooted in the disciplinary approaches of demography, sociology and political science, while the starting point for the latter is often history and the law. Immigration research rooted in a particular field or disciplinary approach may offer highly developed studies, which, however, would benefit from interaction with other approaches to related questions. These interactions serve, among other things, to highlight disciplinary blind spots, which in turn point to research frontiers in immigration research: areas in which interactions across disciplines may lead to fruitful collaborative research.

Team Members

The five core members of the team span multiple disciplines, colleges and departments at Cornell, but each conducts key research linked to the project’s emphasis on questions of settlement, integration, and membership of immigrants in the United States.

Maria Cristina Garcia is Professor of History in the College of Arts and Sciences. Her first book, Havana USA, examined the migration of Cubans to the south Florida after Fidel Castro took power in 1959, amassing in a single generation significant political and economic influence. Havana USA addressed the role of immigration policy in shaping Cuban-American integration and assimilation in the United States. Professor Garcia’s second book, Seeking Refuge, examined Central American migration to Mexico, the United States, and Canada during the political upheaval of the 1980s and 1990s.  She examined the response of governments in the region to the presence of Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Nicaraguan refugees within their borders, and how their policies influenced the character and flow of migration across the region. These policies were themselves shaped by pressure on the part of individuals, groups, and organizations that responded to the refugee crisis, and who worked within and across national borders to shape a more responsive refugee policy. Garcia is currently working on a new project, a study of refugee policy in the United States since the end of the Cold War.

Michael Jones-Correa is Professor of Government at Cornell University. He is a co-author of Latino Lives in America: Making It Home (Temple, 2010), the author of Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City (Cornell, 1998), and the editor of Governing American Cities: Inter-Ethnic Coalitions, Competition and Conflict (Russell Sage Foundation, 2001). Professor Jones-Correa is currently completing projects on the increasing ethnic diversity of suburbs and its implication for local and national politics; multi-authored analyses of the 2006 Latino National Survey, a national state-stratified survey of Latinos in the United States for which he was a principal investigator; and is engaging in collaborative research on new fast-growing immigrant-receiving areas in the United States. He expects to be starting a new project on second-generation immigrant political socialization and incorporation in the United States, paying particular attention to how the political participation children of immigrants varies by the legal status and the contexts of reception of their parents. Jones-Correa has been a visiting fellow at the Russell Sage Foundation 1998-1999, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 2003-2004, and the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University in 2009-2010. In 2004-2005 he served on the Committee on the Redesign of US Naturalization Test for the National Academy of Sciences.

Mary Fainsod Katzenstein is the Stephen and Evalyn Milman Professor of American Studies and professor in the Government Department and Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program. She has written on feminist activism cross-nationally focusing particularly on the United States, Europe, and India. She is the author of Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church and Military (Princeton University Press, 1998) and co-author, along with Judith Reppy, of Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination and Military Culture in the U.S. (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). She is also the co-editor with Carol Mueller of The Women’s Movements of the United States and Western Europe (Temple University Press, 1987) and with Raka Ray of Social Movements in India: Poverty, Power and Politics (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005). Her current project addresses issues of movement activism, incarceration and citizenship in the United States; in particular she is interested in the detention and deportation of undocumented migrants and legal residents following the passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

Douglas Gurak is Professor of Development Sociology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. His research program has two major foci: The first is on the processes of ethnic integration and differentiation in the U.S. Gurak is currently studying the dynamics of the internal migration of immigrants to the U.S. and the linkages between immigration and the migratory patterns of native-born residents. This work extends earlier efforts that examined labor market and household adaptations of immigrants and the evolving living arrangements of immigrant elderly. Gurak recently completed a Census 2000 Population Reference Bureau monograph focusing on shifts over the past three decades in the patterns of integration of immigrant populations, and is working on a Russell Sage Foundation-supported investigation of the forces shaping the internal migration and redistribution of the foreign-born population of the United States. That project has involved the successful completion of parallel proposals to the U.S. Census Bureau in order to gain access to restricted Census and American Community Survey data at the New York Census Research Data Center.

Sharon Sassler is Associate Professor of Policy and Applied Management in the College of Human Ecology. As a social demographer, Sassler examines factors shaping the activities of young adults and their life course transitions into school and work, relationships, and parenthood. Much of her research explores how these transitions vary by gender, race/ethnicity, and social class. Some current projects examine the tempo of different stages in relationship progression and their association with relationship quality, the processes underlying entrance into cohabiting unions, the meaning co-habitors assign to their unions, and the impact of family experiences while young on subsequent fertility events and union transitions (into marriage or cohabitation). Sassler is currently examining the family-building experiences of young adults who were born to unmarried mothers, and the pace of relationship progression among contemporary young adults, as well as pregnancy experiences and intentions of cohabiting young adults.  Her most recent collaboration involves examining how family experiences, including immigration, shape the retention and promotion of women in science and technology careers.

The remaining team members will be recruited in the spring of 2010 through an open competition. The team will bring together scholars who can work together to pursue questions of immigrant settlement, integration and inclusion with an interdisciplinary lens. The set of potential participants with interests in immigration working here at Cornell could be drawn from colleges and programs ranging from Sociology, Economics, and History and Film in the Arts College, to the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the Johnson School, Human Ecology, AEM and the Law School. We would like to supplement the core team with additional team members who can bring economic or legal research to bear on the questions raised, and we will pay particular attention to adding team members with strong historical and/or comparative expertise, to place the U.S. focused work of the core group into perspective. We hope that the application process will reveal others on campus, both in the social sciences and related disciplines, who have an interest in immigration-related research.

The primary purpose of the proposed theme project is to knit together the expertise of immigration researchers across campus and to build on this expertise to generate new research outcomes, expanding the theoretical frontier of immigration studies, while building on and strengthening the institutional resources for immigration studies available on campus.

We expect that in year 1 of the project will be devoted to the organization of the team and its proposed activities, concluding with a talk to launch the initiative in the spring of that year. The first year will also see the selection and invitation of younger scholars to participate in the ISS project’s activities. Two post-doctoral fellows will join the team in year two. These post-doctoral fellowships will be advertised internationally. Fellowships will provide a stipend, fringe, as well as research and travel expenses. In addition, limited research funds of up to $2000 each will be provided to a small group of advanced graduate students at Cornell, who will receive these funds in year 1, and will be expected to take part in, and possibly present their work in, the research seminar and workshops in year 2.

In the second year, the team will participate in weekly lunchtime seminars and a number of one-day workshops aimed at fostering cutting-edge collaborative research among team members and affiliates. These activities will be matched by outreach to the broader university and outside community through public lectures, a film series and teaching.

The ISS team proposes to organize two seminar series that would run concurrently in year two of the project: the first of these would be on immigrant settlement and integration and the second on immigrant membership and inclusion. The weekly seminar series would primarily emphasize dynamics at work in the U.S., but would draw on scholars both within and outside Cornell to include perspectives on processes underway in OECD countries and in less developed countries as well. [names deleted].

Presentations by team members at the seminars will be supplemented with presentations by Cornell faculty and students of works-in-progress, including grant proposals, idea-generating papers, and partially completed analyses. Participants (affiliates both within and outside Cornell) will be expected to share papers ahead of time, and will have a limited outside audience. Critical feedback obtained before a project is completed tends to generate more collaboration, creativity, and cross-disciplinary insights. The focus of the seminars will be on improving scholarly work and modifying research protocols before publication or grant submission. We expect to invite a number of external collaborators to participate in these seminar series. Apart from seminar presentations and mini-conferences, outside guests may be invited to deliver public lectures, as organized in cooperation with other members of the Cornell community.

We expect that the seminar series will be accompanied by up to six one-day mini-conferences or workshops in the second year of the ISS theme project cycle as developed by the team participants, or around themes that emerge in the course of the second year seminars. These one-day workshops might explore variation in the processes of immigration across time and place; for example, how are the questions raised about Islam in democratic societies in Europe in the 21st century similar to the questions raised about the role Catholicism in the United States in the 19th? Workshops could look at how labor force needs in immigration countries connect to immigration in post-industrial economies. Today’s international migration flows to these economies include both large numbers of unskilled and skilled workers but research has tended to ignore differences in the determinants and consequences of different types of migration flows. Workshops might also include comparative work on the types of contexts in receiving countries that do a better job of attracting, retaining and integrating immigrants as well as consider the economic, social and political factors that shape immigrant dispersion to new receiving areas. They could also address questions ranging from how variation in the age structure of the receiving society influences immigrant reception to the effect of parental legal status on second-generation political incorporation.

Workshops might emphasize the impact of changing immigration policy and enforcement in the United States and in Europe, and the effects on immigrant welfare, health, education and labor force participation. What are the effects, for instance, of denying access to state-funded higher education to immigrants that arrived as children? How do changes in visa distribution shape the labor force, among the highly educated and skilled as well as for the unskilled, and relationships with the native-born population? Workshops might also examine the detention policies that have resulted in the wholesale expulsion of hundreds of thousands of migrants from developed countries, and the consequences for families often left divided across borders. Other topics might include an examination of how national censuses, including the 2010 U.S. decennial census and the new American Community Survey (which replaces the long-form), address issues around counting the foreign born, national origin, and legal and unauthorized immigrants; the proposed immigration legislation currently being prepared in the U.S. Congress; and the aging of the first generation in receiving states and sub-state areas and the implications for already strained state welfare systems, health care (e.g., culturally-sensitive pediatrics and obstetrics programs), and school districts (e.g., English language emersion or ESL). We will strongly encourage and indeed expect that these workshops and mini-conferences will generate collaborative funding proposals, taking advantage of the individual disciplinary interests of our members, but informed by interdisciplinary perspectives and united in addressing a common set of problems.

In year 2 we also wish to fund a number of undergraduate research projects related to the project theme, perhaps targeting these funds in particular for courses that have service learning components like Garcia’s History 4850 “Immigration: History, Theory, & Practice,” Craib’s course “Farmworkers,” or to Cornell’s Farmworker Program (, which has a focus on immigrant labor in upstate New York. Above we noted the IIRIRA has significantly increased the numbers of those awaiting deportation from the United States. ICE’s primary facility in the Northeast, which is increasingly run by private companies, is the Batavia Detention Center, approximately three hours from Ithaca. Visits to the facility can be incorporated as part of the project’s teaching and/or workshops.

Finally, we also hope to develop a film series together with Cornell Cinema, and in consultation with Professor Sabine Haenni, Department of Film, Theatre and Dance, around the immigration questions central to the project. (There are an increasing number of films on migration themes, e.g. The Immigrant (1917), Someone Else’s America (1995), La Ciudad (1999), Bread and Roses (2000, Balseros (2002), From the Other Side (2002), Maria Full of Grace (2004), God Grew Tired of US (2006), The Visitor (2007) and Crossing Over (2009), just to name a few; see also: Discussions following each screening will feature the filmmakers whenever possible. Given the large and varied immigrant and refugee population in Ithaca, we would like to draw on them as both a resource as well as a potential audience. Despite its relatively small size, Ithaca has Iraqi translators, Tibetan monks, Burmese refugees, City of Asylum-sponsored poets and artists, Mexican farm workers, Guatemalan dairy workers and former Soviet defectors among its residents. The possibilities for joint collaborations are endless, such as exhibitions with Johnson Museum, oral history projects with the Tompkins County History Center, conversations at the local high school on issues of cultural diversity.

Project Goals

This proposal for the 2010-2013 ISS theme project seeks to build on the considerable expertise that already exists at Cornell around the related issues of immigration settlement, integration and inclusion. This expertise ranges across at least seven colleges and a wide number of departments in the university. There are highly-regarded researchers at Cornell working on the demography of immigrant settlement, immigration in new receiving areas; the settlement of immigrants in metropolitan areas; immigrant integration and assimilation over time; and on immigrants within a legal framework. The breadth and depth of the research expertise at Cornell is as great as at any other top research university; however, as at other institutions it also reflects the highly fragmented nature of study in this interdisciplinary area. While faculty and graduate students engaged in studies of migration at Cornell have been collaborating as a group since 2007 (see, hosting (with the support of the Polson Institute and the Cornell Population Program) speakers and events, this ISS theme project will serve to bring faculty and graduate students together to engage in conversation around a set of key theoretical and policy research areas, generating new collaborations across colleges and departments at Cornell.

More concretely we expect three institutional outcomes from this ISS project on immigration: 1) The theme project will contribute to the Cornell Population Program’s NICHD proposal submission in 2012, highlighting the study of population movements as a key part of the center’s mission. 2) It will further institutionalize the role of the Migration Issues Group (MIG) in fostering immigration research, expanding the participation of other units, particularly the Law School. A core group of MIG participants will be involved in the ISS project either as team members or affiliates. 3) The ISS theme project will generate collaborative funding proposals (e.g. to the National Science Foundation, Russell Sage, MacArthur or Pew foundations), which will take engage common issues from interdisciplinary perspectives. Other important outcomes will include highlighting teaching on immigration issues on campus, increased collaborations both on and off campus, added attention to Cornell social science in the form of publications, citations and new invitations to participate in other projects and events. Together we expect the results of this ISS theme project on immigration will raise Cornell’s national and international profile while institutionalizing Cornell’s capacity for innovative immigration research.
Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beccaria, Cesare. 1995 [1764] On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Richard Davies and Virginia Cox.  In On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings, edited by Richard Bellamy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, Francine D. 1984. ‘The Use of Transfer Payments by Immigrants,’ Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27 January pp. 222–239.

Bloemraad, Irene. 2005. "The Limits of De Tocqueville: How Government Facilitates Organisational Capacity in Newcomer Communities." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31:867‐887.

Borjas, George. 2006. “Making it in America: Social Mobility in the Immigrant Population.” Future of Children, 16, 55-71.
_______ 2001. “Long-run Convergence of Ethnic Skill Differentials, Revisited.” Demography, 38, 357-361.
Borjas, George and L. Hilton. 1996. ‘Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement Programs,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 111:2 May pp. 575–604.

Borjas, George and Stephen J. Trejo. 1991. ‘Immigrant Participation in the Welfare System,’ Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44:2 January pp. 195–211.

Card, David and Ethan Lewis. 2007. "The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts." In George J. Borjas, ed., Mexican Immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cooper, Bo. 2006-2007. “Procedures for Expedited Removal and Asylum Screening Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Connecticut Law Review 29 pp.1501-1524.
Cravey, Altha J. 1997. "The Changing South: Latino Labor and Poultry Production in Rural North Carolina." Southeastern Geographer 37:295‐300.
Danziger, Sheldon and Peter Gottschalk. 1993. Uneven Tides: Rising Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Feliciano, Cynthia. 2006. “Beyond the Family: The Influence of Pre-migration Group Status on the Educational Expectations of Immigrants Children.” Sociology of Education, 79, 281-303.

Foster, Dulce. 1997-1998. “Judge, Jury and Executioner: INS Summary-Exclusion Power Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.” University of Minnesota Law Review 82 pp. 209-248.
Fragomen, Austin. 2007. “The Illegal Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996: An Overview.” International Migration Review 31:2 pp. 438-460.
Frey, William H. “Diversity Spreads Out: Metropolitan Shifts in Hispanic, Asian and Black Populations Since 2000.” Brookings Institution.
______. “Immigration, Domestic Migration and Demographic Balkanization in America: New Evidence for the 1990s. Population and Development Review 22:4 pp. 741-763.
Gozdziak, Elzbieta M. and Susan F. Martin, editors. 2005. Beyond the Gateway: Immigrants in a Changing America. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Hirschman, Charles. 1983. "America's Melting Pot Reconsidered." Annual Review of Sociology 9:397‐423.
Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz and Josh DeWind, editors. 1999. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Johnson, Kenneth M., and Daniel T. Lichter. 2008. "Natural Increase: A New Source of Population Growth in Emerging Hispanic Destinations." Population and Development Review 34:327-346.
Jones-Correa, Michael. 2004. "Racial and Ethnic Diversity and the Politics of Education in Suburbia." Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
______ 2005. "The Bureaucratic Incorporation of Immigrants in Suburbia." Conference on “Immigration to the United States,” Russell Sage Foundation, New York City; February 2‐3.
_______ 2008. "Immigrant Incorporation in Suburbia: The Role of Bureaucratic Norms in Education." Pp. 308‐40 in New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration, edited by Douglas S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kasinitz, Phillip, Mollenkopf, John H., Waters, Mary C., and Holdaway, Jennifer 2008. Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. Harvard University Press.

King, Desmond. 2000. Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kritz, Mary and Douglas Gurak. 2010 “The Foreign-Born in New Destinations. Are The Settling or Circulating?” Paper accepted for presentation in Session on New Destinations, Population Association of America, April 14-17, 2010, Dallas, Texas.

______ 2009. “Destination Choices of Foreign-Born Internal Migrants: National Origin Differences in Dispersion.” Revise and resubmit, Demography.

Kritz, Mary, Douglas Gurak, and M. Lee. 2009 “Foreign-Born Internal Migration an Dispersion Dynamics,” Poster Paper presented at 2009 International Census Research Data Center Conference, October 5, 2009, organized by CISER, Cornell University.

______ 2008. “Internal Migration of Immigrants to New Destinations: Individual and Context Determinants.” Working Paper, Cornell University.

Langenfeld, Amy. 1999. “Living in Limbo: Mandatory Detention of Immigrants Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996.” Arizona State Law Journal 31 pp. 1041-1069.
Leach, Mark and Frank D. Bean. 2008. "Changing Faces/Changing Places: The Emergence of Non‐Metropolitan Immigrant Gateways." New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration, edited by Douglas S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lesher, Dave. 1997. “Deadlock on Prop. 187 Has Backers, Governor Fuming,” Los Angeles Times. Saturday, November 8.

Lewis, Paul G. and S. K. Ramakrishnan. 2004. "Open Arms?: The Receptivity of Cities and Local Officials to Immigrants and their Concerns." Paper presented at American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Levy, Frank. 1998. The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lichter, Daniel T., and Kenneth M. Johnson. 2009. "Immigrant Gateways and Hispanic Migration to New Destinations." International Migration Review 43:496-518.
______ 2006. “Emerging Rural Settlement Patterns and the Geographic Redistribution of America’s New Immigrants.” Rural Sociology 70: 109-131.
Marrow, Helen. Marrow, “Immigrant Bureaucratic Incorporation: The Dual Roles of Professional Missions and Government Policies.” American Sociological Review 74(5): 756-776.
Massey, Douglas S. 2008. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
______ 2007. Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Massey, Douglas S. and Chiara Capoferro. 2008. "The Geographic Diversification of American Immigration." Pp. 25‐50 in New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration, edited by Douglas S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McClain, Paula Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto, Monique L. Lyle, Jeffrey D. Grynaviski, Shayla C. Nunnally, Thomas J. Scotto, J. Alan Kendrick, Gerald F. Lackey, and Kendra Davenport Cotton., “Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants’ Views of Black Americans.”, Journal of Politics, vol. 68 no. 3 (August, 2006), pp. :571-584.
McDonnell, Patrick. 1997. “Prop. 187 Found Unconstitutional by Federal Judge,” Los Angeles Times Saturday, November 15.

Meissner, Doris, Deborah W. Meyers, Demetrios G. Papademetriou and Marc R. Rosenblum, editors. 2006. Immigration and America's Future. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Morawetz, Nancy. 1999-2000. “Understanding the Impact of the 1996 Deportation Laws and the Limited Scope of Proposed Reforms. Harvard Law Review 113 pp. 1935-1962.
Myers, Dowell. 2007. Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ngai, Mai. 2005. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Perlmann, Joel. 2007. Italians Then, Mexicans Now: Immigrant Origins and the Second-Generation Progress, 1890 to 2000. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:1 pp. 74-96.

Ramji, Jaya. 2001. “Legislating Away International Law: The Refugee Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 37 pp. 117-162.
Rodriguez, Cristina, Muzaffar Chishti and Kimberly Nortman. 2007. "Testing the Limits: A Framework for Assessing the Legality of State and Local Immigration Measures." Report. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Sassler, Sharon. 2006. “School Participation of Immigrant Youths in the Early 20th Century: Integration or Segmented Assimilation?” Sociology of Education. 79:1 pp.1-24.

Schmitt, C. 1996. ‘A Law to Learn ‘Em A Thing Or Two About The English Language’ New York Times July 28.

Schuck, Peter. 1997. ‘The Re–Evaluation of American Citizenship’ Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 12:1 pp. 1–34.

Schuck, Peter and Rogers Smith. 1985. Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press).

Singer, Audrey, Carolyn Brettell and Susan Hardwick, editors. 2008. America’s Twenty-First Century Immigrant Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburbia. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tienda, Marta. 2002. "Demography and the Social Contract." Demography 39:587‐616.
Tienda, Marta and Faith Mitchell, editors. 2006. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies: Hispanics and the American Future. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Waters, Mary C. and Karl Eschbach. 1995. "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology 21:419‐46.
Welch, Michael. 2002. Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding INS Jail Complex. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Weiss, Kenneth. 1998. ‘”Fewer Blacks and Latinos Admitted to Three UC Schools,” Los Angeles Times March 17.

Zuñiga, Victor and Rubén Hernández‐León, editors. 2005. New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.


Participant Bio Sketches

Download 175.29 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page