top of page
Writer's pictureSoEun Park

Through a Sociological Lens: Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging in the United States

By SoEun Park

Governance & Society


Introduction

The world has become increasingly interconnected and globalized leading to diasporization––“the relocation of people in space and their ability, desire, and persistence to sustain connections and commonality across the globe” (Georgiou 2). Ethnicity, nationality, nationhood, boundaries, and identity all play a role in the discussion of diaspora. This phenomenon also inevitably suggests that immigration, including immigrants in the United States, has increased. However, this is not just a recent phenomenon; since the colonial period, through the Industrial Revolution, the Roaring Twenties, and the Great Depression, the United States has been an attraction for immigration, and legal immigration policies have changed dramatically, with the politics surrounding these changes remaining controversial (Baxter). Nevertheless, it is evident that diasporic populations in this Western capitalism have experienced subordination and exclusion. 


Today, foreign-born populations in the U.S. consists of 21.2 million “immigrants” who are naturalized citizens, 11.7 million legal permanent residents or refugees, 1.9 million “non-immigrants” who are legal residents on temporary visas, and 11.3 million people who are unauthorized or undocumented (Altman et al. 364). These immigrants inevitably face liminality, a “transitory, in-between state or space, which is characterized by indeterminacy, ambiguity, hybridity, the potential for subversion and change” (“Liminality”). Despite this liminality, immigrants in the United States have struggled for centuries to gain a sense of belonging, which can be broadly classified into two main categories: naturalization (gaining citizenship) and factors beyond legal statuses, such as symbolic boundaries, nationalism, and national identity. As immigrants navigate through a third space of liminality, I argue they require both legal boundaries and factors beyond them to feel and achieve a sense of belonging; both are equally important, and merely concentrating on one will not aid in this sentiment of inclusion. Working to improve both aspects will increase the sense of security, support, and acceptance for 

immigrants, especially in the United States. 


Legal Status as a Way of Belonging: Citizenship 

Acquiring citizenship is a formal means of gaining political inclusion in one’s country of residence. It comes with the entitlement to rights and responsibilities, including the opportunity for immigrants to obtain a passport. As a result, being naturalized transforms the perception of one’s “alien” status to that of a legitimate citizen, affording them the same privileges and status as those born citizens of that nation (Simonsen 1). These privileges and status gives immigrants advantage when maneuvering through liminality. 


Regarding the privileges and obligations of having a passport and citizenship, obtaining citizenship is simply a formal matter of attaining a particular objective status within a society. However, there is a constant political debate about the “granting of citizenship” and how stories of “citizenship as a highly contested policy domain, which is not just about rules but also about identity” (Simonsen 1). The concept of national belonging can be described as the attraction and identification of an individual with a nation, which transforms one’s identity from an “outsider” into a citizen. Thus, in the United States, gaining citizenship can facilitate this national belonging and alter one’s identity to become more “American” within this transitional, liminal space. 


Citizenship: Marxian Perspective 

There are various advantages of citizenship, especially regarding immigrants’ socioeconomic attainment, creating inequalities between those who have citizenship and those who do not. This can be connected to the Marxian school of thought in sociology that primarily sees division, inequality, haves, and have-nots in society: ultimately, class struggle depending on the acquisition of citizenship. Here, society is inherently divided into those who have citizenship and those who do not, and individuals in different collectivities are restricted by their position in this division. 


The most significant advantage of citizenship is showcased in economic opportunities and outcomes. An immigrant’s migration status can operate as a “primary source of disparities in economic well-being if access to society remains limited, ultimately operating “as an axis of social stratification” (Altman et al. 366). There are many ways that citizenship can be utilized as a leverage when it comes to economic outcomes. They may “serve as a signaling mechanism that convinces employers to hold on to certain employees,” reflecting “attachment to the United States and therefore a perhaps stronger commitment to stay in a particular company or job” (Carton 1007). As naturalized citizens anticipate a more extended stay in the U.S., they tend to invest in human capital specific to the U.S., resulting in improved employment prospects over time (Carton 1007). 




Moreover, “migration status can confer or deny access to membership in society” with accompanying benefits that citizenship provides (Altman et al. 366). This creates a greater conflict between those with membership within the society and those without membership. Thus, citizenship acquisition allows immigrants accessibility to occupation and promotion that otherwise would be unavailable if they did not have citizenship, underscoring the inequalities that are created in employment. Undocumented and legally resident citizens also face significantly increased odds of material hardships compared to naturalized citizens (Altman et al. 393). These material hardships include access to health care, education, housing, and food security, adding to the burden of economic inequity. However, although “U.S. citizenship through naturalization is associated with substantial advantages in terms of material hardship, it does not eliminate all experiences of material hardship” (Altman et al. 393). Due to exclusion in this liminality, gaining citizenship is not enough to overcome these material obstacles.


Furthermore, citizenship advantage and intergenerational attainment are highly correlated with each other. A parent’s citizenship status will affect children’s economic outcomes due to various factors. The “formal rights and privileges such as access to certain jobs as well as informal components like a sense of belonging to a community” allow parents to invest their human and social capital at higher levels, allowing for higher economic mobility for the children (Catron 1007). In addition, the longevity of how long the parent has been a citizen and the timing of the citizenship for the parent can also affect children, leading to unequal life chances. Children were more likely to benefit from their parents being naturalized when they were young than adolescents (Catron 1007). This demonstrates the “both impeding access to citizenship and widening formal inequalities between citizens and noncitizens” economically, further creating economic inequality and division in the U.S. (Catron 1033). As these divides increase, the sense of belonging for these naturalized immigrants also decreases due to the lack of socioeconomic mobility and the parent’s influence on their children’s sense of belonging. Therefore, citizenship becomes a vessel that could aid immigrants in getting out of the liminal zone. 


Case Study About Citizenship: Chinese in Silicon Valley

The case study of Chinese in Silicon Valley from “Citizenship, Political Engagement, and Belonging” provides a unique perspective of how Chinese are grounding themselves both economically and politically in their new land that can be explored through a Marxian lens (Wong). In Silicon Valley, where big businesses are thriving, and economic inequality is already pronounced, Chinese immigrants want to gain citizenship in order to access more economic advantages. This specific community showcases that one can be transnational and a committed citizen with a cultural heritage at the same time, a form of “multicultural citizenship” where “one has feet in two cultures but citizenship rooted in one nation” (Wong 184). In this case, they navigate through liminality, where they are caught between identities, yet can still maintain loyalty to one nation by negotiating their identities and cultural differences. 


As a result of their citizenship in Silicon Valley, the Chinese have access to many benefits and opportunities. The study particularly emphasizes that the desire for respect is deeply correlated with the desire to be a committed U.S. citizen when starting a firm in the U.S. Although Chinese immigrants have to give up their Chinese citizenship, many apply for U.S. citizenship as soon as they qualify; they are eager to be U.S. citizens. Furthermore, “the majority of the Chinese Americans, whether they are immigrants or U.S.-born,” are “highly engaged in citizenship-making activities” (Wong 197). Therefore, gaining citizenship allows for more respect and opportunities within the business for Chinese immigrants, where they cultivate this “multicultural citizenship.” It underscores that globalization and localization can simultaneously exist, furthering their sense of belonging in their establishment and groundings. 


Beyond Legal Statuses

Legal citizenship status inevitably fosters a sense of belonging to immigrants due to the rights and privileges that it provides. Nevertheless, the lack of citizenship is not the only factor contributing to this lack of inclusion. Other social components lend themselves to the sense of belonging. A sociological perspective will be used to investigate symbolic, racial and cultural boundaries, nationalism, and national identity in the context of immigrant experiences.


Symbolic Boundaries

Despite the acquisition of citizenship, symbolic boundaries are still omnipresent between immigrants and natural-born citizens. According to sociologists, symbolic boundaries can be defined as “lines that include and define some people, groups, and things while excluding others” (Lamont et al. 850). They can be expressed through “normative interdictions (taboos), cultural attitudes and practices, and patterns of likes and dislikes,” playing “an important role in the creation of inequality and the exercise of power” (Lamont et al. 850). Two of the founding fathers of sociology––Durkheim and Weber––have similar yet different approaches to this concept of symbolic boundaries that further elucidates liminality. 


Durkheim: Immigrants and Symbolic Boundaries

Durkheim argues that symbolic boundaries create a sense of social solidarity by sharing a “common definition of the sacred and the profane, of similar rules of conduct and a common compliance to rituals and interdictions that define the internal bonds within a community” (Lamont et al. 850). Similarly, these internal bonds and social solidarity can be found within the immigrant’s spaces. For immigrants and the diaspora population, “spheres of belonging with the intimate and immediate experience in what is called home” (Georgieu 6). As a result, immigrants develop a sense of belonging and status in society through their imagined homes and domestic environments, as well as through their bond with a cultural heritage like the Chinese in Silicon Valley.




Weber: Immigrants Symbolic Boundaries

On the other hand, Weber concentrates on how symbolic boundaries create more social inequality rather than social solidarity. He emphasizes how superiority is defined in symbolic boundaries and how “cultivate a sense of honor, privilege relationships with group members, and define specific qualifications for gaining entry to the group and for interacting with lower status outsiders” (Lamont et al. 851). Ultimately, their higher status justifies their monopolization of resources and the opportunities that these resources provide. Thus, cultural understanding of 

status boundaries strongly affect one’s social position and access to resources. 


As an immigrant, one’s social position and access to resources are highly limited compared to natural-born citizens, even if one has citizenship. Natural-born citizens can usurp resources within and across class boundaries, further defining the symbolic boundaries between the two groups (Lamont et al. 851). Furthermore, “it is the matter of symbolic boundaries’ construction between us and the others as it is as about defining and imagining, defining and imaging commonality and community” that Durkehiem suggests (Georgiou 6). The notion of “us and them” that “to maintain and achieve superiority over an out-group in some dimension” is also crucial to consider (Lamont et al. 853). This imagined community and the power dynamics between the diaspora population and the citizens indicate the implications of how identities and communities are sustained across space. Symbolic boundaries further emphasize the temporal border of liminality, at which this distinction of imagined community is drawn, as temporal borders are “a subset of symbolic borders” (“Temporal Border”). 


Moreover, studies have shown that immigrants’ sense of belonging depends on how the host nation envisions its community and associates boundaries. Simenson’s study found that “citizenship policies do not explain this cross-national variation”; rather, “what matters is the informal boundary drawing produced in the majority population’s conception of what is important for being part of the national ‘us’” (Simenson 1153). This suggests that national boundaries exist despite citizenship, and immigrants’ belonging is more significant when the majority population prioritizes national membership criteria that can be met. Thus, even after obtaining citizenship, immigrants’ sense of belonging will not be as strong if the nation clearly defines these symbolic boundaries between “us” and “them”, viewing immigrants as “aliens.”


Cultural Citizenship: Racial and Cultural Boundaries 

Additionally, immigrants negotiate racial and cultural boundaries within the United States. Ong defines cultural citizenship as “cultural practices and beliefs produced out of negotiating the often ambivalent and contested relations with the state and its hegemonic forms that establish the criteria of belonging within a national population and territory” (Ong 738). This emphasizes self-making and identity in the United States’ processes instead of merely exercising one’s rights or attending state agencies and civil society regimes. 


Moreover, there are not just boundaries between immigrants and natural-born citizens; there are also boundaries between different racial backgrounds. The intersection of race and culture is apparent when drawing symbolic boundaries between groups, mainly because immigrants of minorities of color are more disadvantaged than European immigrants; “immigrants from Asia or poorer countries must daily negotiate the lines of difference established by state agencies as well as groups in civil society” in the United States (Ong 737). Ong suggests that citizenship allows immigrants to scale racial and cultural heights by acquiring citizenship privileges in the U.S. but not by evading status hierarchy based on racial differences. Thus, citizenship alone cannot create the best sense of belonging for immigrants, as racial and cultural boundaries must also be considered in the grand scheme of integration in the liminal space. 


Nationalism and National Identity 

As a concept associated with symbolic boundaries, nationalism refers to the belief in an imagined national community based on one’s loyalty and dedication to the nation, leading to sacrifices for the nation. It is akin to a kind of religion that people worship. However, nationalism is also a “highly flexible political language,” a way “of framing political arguments by appealing” to the nation as well (Brubaker 120). Although traditionally, nationalism was about bringing people together, we currently think of it as tearing people apart within a country. 


Today’s debate over immigration creates a larger gap between citizens and immigrants, further enforcing the boundary between them. As nationalism is one of the main sentiments that are shown by some Americans who oppose immigration to the U.S., this can further emphasize the “us” versus “them” sentiment. The immigrants’ sense of belonging largely depends on the “question of what ‘defines us as a nation’ is not a matter of brute fact, but of public narratives, of self-understandings shaped and reshaped by stories” (Brubaker 123). Thus, the narrative of U.S. nationalism significantly affects immigrants. American historian Jill Lepore explains, “Immigration policy is a topic for political debate; reasonable people disagree. But hating immigrants, as if they were lesser humans, is a form of nationalism that has nothing to do with patriotism” (Anderson). This showcases that immigration and nationalism are variables that affect each other, shaping the identities of immigrants and their navigation in liminality. As a result, the narrative and the story significantly contribute to national identity within the United States, affecting immigrants’ sense of belonging and integration.


Conclusion: Is Mere Citizenship Enough?

Some may argue that citizenship can help reach a sense of belonging beyond legal status. As one can see, citizenship correlates with higher economic opportunities and outcomes, which encourages this sense of inclusion for immigrants. However, different policies and implementations need to be made to increase the sense of belonging significantly; in the liminal space between naturalization and not feeling like an American citizen, more than citizenship is needed for immigrants. 


When it comes to the notion of citizenship always furthering immigrants’ feeling of belonging to the host nation, “the idea that citizenship matters for feelings of belonging, but only when it also matters for host nationals in their perceptions of who belongs” (Simenson 15). Although citizenship is a significant factor in cultivating this belonging, it is insufficient for immigrants to fully integrate into the United States due to various factors we have explored, such as symbolic, cultural, racial boundaries, nationalism, and national identity. Instead of focusing on the differences between citizens and immigrants, we should prioritize national membership criteria that immigrants can meet and how to foster a sense of belonging. Hence, as Americans, we must ask ourselves: “How can immigrants achieve a sense of belonging beyond legal status, and what mechanisms and policies could be put into place in the U.S. to help them achieve this?” Facilitating the path to citizenship and reducing the perceived social and cultural distance between immigrants and the host society while reducing the gap in symbolic boundaries can foster a greater sense of belonging for immigrants, ultimately enabling them to flourish and transcend the transitional phase of liminality.



Works Cited:

Altman, Claire E., et al. “Material Hardship among Immigrants in the United States: Variation by 

Citizenship, Legal Status, and Origin in the 1996–2008 Sipp.” Population Research and 

Policy Review, vol. 40, no. 3, 2020, pp. 363–399., 


Anderson, Stuart. “Immigration, Nationalism and America’s Founders.” Forbes, Forbes 

Magazine, 1 Aug. 2019, 


Baxter , Andrew M., and Alex Nowrasteh. “A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy from the 

Colonial Period to the Present Day.” Cato.org, 2021, 


Catron, Peter. “The Citizenship Advantage: Immigrant Socioeconomic Attainment in the Age of 

Mass Migration.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 124, no. 4, 2019, pp. 999–1042., 


Geōrgiou, Myria. Diaspora, Identity and the Media : Diasporic Transnationalism and Mediated 


Lamont, Michèle, et al. “Symbolic Boundaries.” International Encyclopedia of the Social & 

Behavioral Sciences, 2015, pp. 850–855., 


“Liminality.” Liminality - Border Poetics, borderpoetics.wikidot.com/liminality


Ong, Aihwa, et al. “Cultural Citizenship as Subject-Making: Immigrants Negotiate Racial and 

Cultural Boundaries in the United States [and Comments and Reply].” Current 

Anthropology, vol. 37, no. 5, 1996, pp. 737–62. JSTOR, 


Simonsen, Kristina Bakkær. “Does Citizenship Always Further Immigrants’ Feeling of 

Belonging to the Host Nation? A Study of Policies and Public Attitudes in 14 Western 

Democracies.” Comparative Migration Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017, 


Simonsen, Kristina Bakkær. “How the Host Nation’s Boundary Drawing Affects Immigrants’ 

Belonging.” Taylor & Francis, 2 Feb. 2016, 


“Temporal Border.” Temporal Border - Border Poetics


Wong, Bernard P. “Globalization and Citizenship: The Chinese in Silicon Valley.” Citizenship, 

Political Engagement, and Belonging, 2020, pp. 183–202., 


Comments


bottom of page