Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Access for All
Exhibit Hall
Hotels
WiFi
Search Tips
Does local exposure to immigrants foster tolerance or trigger hostility? Recent waves of asylum seekers have intensified public debate over immigration in U.S. cities, yet existing research offers mixed evidence on how local demographic context and intergroup contact shape attitudes toward immigrants. Drawing on the New Migrants in New York City Survey (N = 1,250), conducted in fall 2024, this study examines the attitudes toward immigrants across two dimensions: the deservingness of public support for migrants already present and the deservingness of admission into the national community. Using multilevel models linking individual attitudes to neighborhood demographics, we distinguish between objective immigrant density and subjective misperceptions of population size (“perception gaps”), while also assessing the frequency and quality of intergroup contact.
The results reveal a clear divergence. Support for public services is shaped by objective neighborhood density but buffered by routine contact, regardless of its quality. In contrast, admission preferences are predicted exclusively by subjective overestimation of immigrant presence. Residents who overestimate the immigrant population demand stricter symbolic boundaries, regardless of their actual neighborhood context. Crucially, this symbolic threat creates a hard limit to the contact hypothesis. We identify a specific tipping point: when residents perceive immigrants as constituting a local majority (approximately 52%), the protective effect of friendly contact collapses. This suggests that while contact reduces practical concerns about resource distribution, it cannot mitigate the symbolic anxiety of demographic replacement. By disaggregating threat, contact, and deservingness, this study reconciles competing theories and highlights the limits of interpersonal interaction in contexts marked by demographic misperception and crisis narratives.