Dissertation

---

Why do cities implement costly immigrant inclusion policies, even if immigrants cannot vote? I argue that cities implement these policies because they benefit many communities, not just immigrants. These local immigrant inclusion policies have proliferated across the United States in recent years due to federal legislative deadlock on immigration policy. Despite their proliferation, we know little about the political consequences of these policies on immigrant or minoritized communities. Through a series of three papers, I examine the impacts of these inclusion policies and determine whether they foster greater political participation among immigrant groups and Asian, Black, and Latino communities in general. In doing so, I address the puzzle of why cities engage in this seemingly paradoxical behavior. 

To make these arguments, I draw upon literature on immigrant political participation, local immigrant policies, and policy feedback theory. In my first paper, I argue that these local policies provide immigrants with the resources, social networks, and psychological benefits necessary for political participation. In my second paper, I examine whether the psychological benefits and resources provided by local inclusion policies also flow to individuals who are members of minoritized communities but not themselves immigrants--for example, the children of immigrants. For my third paper, I examine whether substantive versus symbolic policies are most effective in stimulating political participation among these groups.

To answer these questions, I create a novel index comprised of 31 variables on immigrant inclusivity across the 100 most populous cities in the U.S. from 2010 to 2020. I use this index, alongside a blend of various forms of political participation data from the CES, ANES, CMPS, and California National Voter File, to determine whether this is indeed the case. I find mixed support for my theory and offer suggestions for future work.