(Un)conditional? The role of integration and psychological predispositions in citizens’ attitudes toward immigrant enfranchisement

Abstract

As democracies grow more diverse through immigration, a key question arises: when should immigrants participate in political decision-making? We examine citizens’ beliefs about when immigrants should vote in national elections (before citizenship, with citizenship, or never) and whether these views depend on immigrants’ integration markers. We assess how exclusionary worldviews and psychological predispositions—authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ethnocentrism—shape views of democratic membership and how malleable those views are. Using 2021 survey data from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, we find that integration criteria matter most to those who view citizenship as the primary gateway to political inclusion. High levels of SDO and ethnocentrism are associated with exclusionary preferences, though integration efforts reduce resistance among individuals high in SDO. Authoritarian-leaning individuals are simultaneously more willing to include immigrants pre-naturalization and more likely to support permanent exclusion. These findings highlight the conditional nature of political inclusion in diverse democracies.