@article{ebert_liao_park_2022, title={Migration and Racialization Part I: Constructing and Navigating a Hostile Terrain}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1552-3381"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027642221083533}, DOI={10.1177/00027642221083533}, abstractNote={This two-part special issue spotlights empirical and theoretical articles on the racialization of migrants and migration. 1,2 These studies show how racialization is a dynamic process whereby “ ideas about race are constructed, come to be regarded as meaningful, and are acted upon ” (Murji and Solomos 2005: 1); and how migrants and migration are key sites to understand this complex and oftentimes contradictory process. These articles stem from a virtual conference held in December 2020 on racialization and migration organized by Kim Ebert and Wenjie Liao. The conference sought to bring together scholars who study how migrants are constructed and targeted as the “ Other ” and with what consequences, and how migrants and their allies confront and challenge these constructions. We found this line of research especially important in an era of global right-wing resurgence built on anti-immigration sentiments and actions. The conference participants comprised an interdisciplinary group of social scientists whose work complicated the existing literature on race, racialization, and migration in multiple ways, including incorporating an intersectional analytical lens as an alternative to traditional assimilationist approaches to migration research; de-centering the state in these analyses; focusing on alternative,}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Ebert, Kim and Liao, Wenjie and Park, Lisa Sun-Hee}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{liao_ebert_park_2022, title={Migration and Racialization Part II: The Light and Shadow of Inclusion}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1552-3381"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027642221083539}, DOI={10.1177/00027642221083539}, abstractNote={The five articles in this second of a two-part special issue on racialization and migration discuss how racialization is not exclusively linked to the exclusion of migrants, at least not explicitly so. They challenge “crimmigration,” which sits at the center of many pieces in the first part, as the core of migrant racialization in two ways. First, they speak to how organizations or contexts seemingly welcoming to migrants can (often unintentionally) reify the same racializing logics of the xenophobic social or legal regime that exclude migrants as disposable and exploitable. Or, more precisely, they demonstrate how the “inclusion” and “exclusion” of migrants are not contradictory or even in tension with each other but instead mutually constructive (De Genova, 2013). Second, they raise questions about what racialization is/does from the perspective of the migrants and consider migrants as not only the objects but also subjects of racialization. Both of these perspectives add nuance to the race and racialization scholarship by illustrating that racialization is not a status of being but a process of becoming and a process full of contention and inconsistency. This collection of articles empirically attests to the elasticity of hegemony and the complex struggle for a just or radical future. In “Building and Wedging Strategic Alliances: Racial Framing Contests in the Immigrant Rights and Nativist CounterMovements,” Hajar Yazdiha (2022) establishes the pivotal role of racial meaning in}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Liao, Wenjie and Ebert, Kim and Park, Lisa Sun-Hee}, year={2022}, month={May} }
 @article{simpson_walter_ebert_2021, title={"BRAINWASHING FOR THE RIGHT REASONS WITH THE RIGHT MESSAGE": IDEOLOGY AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY IN BLACK ORGANIZING}, volume={26}, ISSN={["1086-671X"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17813/1086-671x-26-4-401}, DOI={10.17813/1086-671x-26-4-401}, abstractNote={Media outlets and academics often oversimplify and mischaracterize current manifestations of Black mobilization as a movement that opposes police violence against Black men, supports police reform, and desires assimilation and integration into the state. In reality, however, the movement is much more complex. We examine how Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100), a prominent organization in the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), creates, teaches, and negotiates ideology. Drawing on fieldwork with Black organizers involved in the M4BL, in-depth interviews and conversations with Black organizers, and a content analysis of primary documents from the movement, we find that rather than promote assimilation, Black organizers use intersectional ideology to socialize members into an understanding of a racialized state. This socialization allows members to develop political subjectivity that not only challenges the state but also transforms their everyday lives and relationships.}, number={4}, journal={MOBILIZATION}, publisher={Mobilization Journal}, author={Simpson, Chaniqua D. and Walter, Avery and Ebert, Kim}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={401–420} }
 @article{ebert_2021, title={Ideological Legitimacy, Color-blindness, and Racially Conservative Organizations}, volume={68}, ISSN={["1533-8533"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz053}, DOI={10.1093/socpro/spz053}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={SOCIAL PROBLEMS}, author={Ebert, Kim}, year={2021}, month={Feb}, pages={19–40} }
 @article{liao_ebert_hummel_estrada_2021, title={The House Is on Fire but We Kept the Burglars Out: Racial Apathy and White Ignorance in Pandemic-Era Immigration Detention}, volume={10}, ISSN={["2076-0760"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100358}, DOI={10.3390/socsci10100358}, abstractNote={Past research shows that crises reveal the sensitive spots of established ideologies and practices, thereby providing opportunities for social change. We investigated immigration control amid the pandemic crisis, focusing on potential openings for both challengers and proponents of immigration detention. We asked: How have these groups responded to the pandemic crisis? Have they called for transformative change? We analyzed an original data set of primary content derived from immigrant advocates and stakeholders of the immigration detention industry. We found as the pandemic ravaged the world, it did not appear to result in significant cracks in the industry, as evidenced by the consistency of narratives dating back to pre-pandemic times. The American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) criticisms of inhumane conditions in immigration detention resembled those from its pre-pandemic advocacy. Private prison companies, including CoreCivic and GEO Group, emphasized their roles as ordinary businesses rather than detention managers during the pandemic, just as they had before the crisis. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), however, manufactured an alternative storyline, emphasizing “COVID fraud” as the real threat to the “Homeland.” Although it did not call for radical change, it radically shifted its rhetoric in response to the pandemic. We discuss how these organizations’ indifference towards structural racism contributes to racial apathy and how the obliviousness and irresponsibility of industry stakeholders resembles white ignorance.}, number={10}, journal={SOCIAL SCIENCES-BASEL}, author={Liao, Wenjie and Ebert, Kim and Hummel, Joshua R. and Estrada, Emily P.}, year={2021}, month={Oct} }
 @article{ebert_liao_estrada_2020, title={Apathy and Color-Blindness in Privatized Immigration Control}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2332-6505"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2332649219846140}, DOI={10.1177/2332649219846140}, abstractNote={Despite several widely covered scandals involving the role of for-profit corporations in administering immigration policy, the privatization of immigration control continues apace with the criminalization of immigration. How does this practice sustain its legitimacy among the public amid so much controversy? Recent studies on the criminalization of immigration suggest that supporters would explicitly vilify immigrants to defend the privatization of immigration control. Research on racialized social control, on the other hand, implies that proponents would avoid explicit racism and vilification and instead rely on subtler narratives to validate the practice. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of over 600 frames derived from nearly 200 news media articles spanning over 20 years, we find that journalists and their sources rarely vilify immigrants to justify the privatization of immigration control. Instead, they frame the privatization of immigration detention as a normal component of population management and an integral part of the U.S. economy through what we call the apathy strategy—a pattern of void in which not only the systematic oppression of immigrants is underplayed, immigrant themselves also become invisible.}, number={4}, journal={SOCIOLOGY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Ebert, Kim and Liao, Wenjie and Estrada, Emily P.}, year={2020}, month={Oct}, pages={533–547} }
 @article{estrada_ebert_liao_2020, title={Polarized Toward Apathy: An Analysis of the Privatized Immigration-Control Debate in the Trump Era}, volume={53}, ISSN={["1537-5935"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000785}, DOI={10.1017/S1049096520000785}, abstractNote={Interlocking corporations, individuals, and institutions have benefited from a strong and growing prison– industrial complex that targets poor communities of color.More recently, immigrants have become another “supply” group of this growing business—a business that has been particularly profitable for private prison corporations, including CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America); The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO); and Management & Training Corporation (MTC) (Doty and Wheatley 2013). Like the incarceration of domestic populations (Alexander 2010), immigration detention represents a gendered form of institutional racism that disproportionately targets impoverished men of African and Latin American descent (Golash-Boza 2016). Moreover, like mass incarceration, for-profit detention has been the subject of considerable public debate. Numerous reports criticize aspects of corporate detention, including its influence and embeddedness in government institutions, exploitation and mismanagement within its facilities, and the infusion of a profit motive into population management (American Civil Liberties Union 2014; Elk and Sloan 2011; Horowitz 2016; Sullivan 2010). These critiques reached a critical point when, in August 2016, President Obama’s Department of Justice announced plans to phase out the use of for-profit prisons that primarily house “criminal aliens.” However, months later, the Trump administration reversed this decision, thereby strengthening its commitment to incarcerating immigrants, most of whom are imprisoned in for-profit facilities (Cullen 2018). Despite support from the Trump administration, the controversy surrounding for-profit (and public) immigration control continues, most notably amid scandals involving detained children and family separation. Faced with new economic opportunities, and new criticisms, proponents are pressured to defend and elicit support for privatized immigration control. Before Trump’s election, advocates for the industry employed an apathy strategy by actively avoiding discussions of immigrants and inequality, as though the oppressed or oppressive practices do not matter or exist (Ebert, Liao, and Estrada 2019). This strategy is akin to existing analytic frameworks including racial apathy and color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva 2017; Forman and Lewis 2006; Mueller 2017) in that rather than explicitly vilifying immigrants, journalists and their sources framed privatized immigration control as a normal component of population management and the economy as well as a solution to manufactured social problems. In contrast, throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump has aimed overtly racist statements at immigrants and other communities of color (Crabtree et al. 2018; Medina Vidal 2018). Recent studies argue that blatant expressions of racism within the Trump administration may have facilitated major immigration-policy changes (Pierce and Steele 2017) and normalized white supremacist and nativist narratives (Shafer 2017). That is, Trump’s embrace of “politically incorrect” rhetoric may have altered aspects of the discursive opportunity structure (DOS), thereby validating certain narratives and enabling their diffusion and increased visibility in the public sphere (see McCammon et al. 2007 and references therein). It remains to be seen, however, whether the transformation of the DOS has influenced narratives in other arenas (e.g., immigration control). Have supporters embraced virulent racism and nativism to justify the industry? What about opponents? Has the transformation of the DOS inspired counter-narratives that publicize the institutional racism underlying the industry?}, number={4}, journal={PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Estrada, Emily P. and Ebert, Kim and Liao, Wenjie}, year={2020}, month={Oct}, pages={679–684} }
 @article{brooks_ebert_flockhart_2017, title={Examining the Reach of Color Blindness: Ideological Flexibility, Frame Alignment, and Legitimacy among Racially Conservative and Extremist Organizations}, volume={58}, ISSN={["1533-8525"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1296340}, DOI={10.1080/00380253.2017.1296340}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT To what extent do right-wing groups demonstrate internal alignment in their use of racial ideologies? Under what conditions with respect to internal alignment do mainstream media legitimize these groups by relaying their messages to the public as the organizations intended? We analyzed two decades’ worth of organizational literature and media coverage to examine the relationship between internal and external frame alignment. The findings reveal that organizations display ideological flexibility in their public documents. Organizations receive mainstream legitimacy when groups use a framing strategy that avoids the rhetoric of old racism, selectively incorporates the discourse of white victimhood, and emphasizes the language of new racism.}, number={2}, journal={SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Brooks, Erinn and Ebert, Kim and Flockhart, Tyler}, year={2017}, pages={254–276} }
 @article{ebert_2017, title={Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines}, volume={46}, ISSN={["1939-8638"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0094306117725085ii}, DOI={10.1177/0094306117725085ii}, abstractNote={social problems/experiences, but also the real potential to either enact or reinforce specific types of (neuro)governance. Rather than increasing the capacity to understand the relationships between the biological and social, such research in its current form normalizes a particular standard of the neurobiological body, which silences and/or erases socially marginalized and stratified bodies, identities, and experiences. Meaning, if the epistemology of neural plasticity is bounded by rigid understandings of the brain-social relationship or evolutionary prefigured social bodies and subjectivities, then brain-based biosocial explanations are vulnerable to biological determinism and reductionism and may potentially naturalize the very social inequalities they seek to avoid and/or address. The way forward, as Pitts-Taylor outlines, is a queering of brain plasticity and/or biosociality to help avoid limiting what the social brain can and should be. That means developing a multiplicity of embodiment: ‘‘a way of looking at the neurobiological body that neither presupposes universality nor overlooks the pitfalls of addressing difference’’ (p. 15). This more complex understanding of embodiment accounts for the multiple and entangled ways that subjectivity, life, and health are brought to experience, modified, and/or made meaningful (or not) through our explorations of biosociality. In exploring the neuroscientific approaches to biosocial research, Pitts-Taylor refuses to settle for what she sees as a limiting (neuro)biological framing of biosocial entanglements. Her plea for multiplicity of embodiment opens up a space to understand better biosocial potentialities and what it means for our social experiences to be truly embodied or ‘‘complexly embrained’’ (p. 10). She shows convincingly that if a new science of biosociality is needed, social scientists must have input in its conceptualization, design, and execution and not simply be users or ethical endorsers of such neuroscientific practices and technologies. In conclusion, as we continue to wrestle with how the brain informs our sociological awareness and investigation, we will look to The Brain’s Body as a blueprint to help us untangle fully the sociological usefulness, uncertainties, and risks in exploring the relationships between our brains and sociality.}, number={5}, journal={CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY-A JOURNAL OF REVIEWS}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Ebert, Kim}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={591–593} }
 @article{estrada_ebert_lore_2016, title={Apathy and Antipathy: Media Coverage of Restrictive Immigration Legislation and the Maintenance of Symbolic Boundaries}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1573-7861"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/socf.12262}, DOI={10.1111/socf.12262}, abstractNote={Although the government no longer explicitly establishes boundaries of whiteness, it continues to play a central role in shaping symbolic boundaries between immigrants and nonimmigrants through immigration lawmaking. However, the salience of these boundaries may depend on how the media disseminate them to the public. In this study, we investigate media framing of immigration lawmaking using an original data set of news coverage of six of the most widely recognized exclusionary immigration bills and laws at different levels of government. Two patterns emerged from an iterative frame analysis. First, in their coverage of frames critical of these bills and laws, outlets devoted more attention to the effects of exclusionary legislation for nonimmigrants. Second, in their coverage of frames supportive of the restrictive legislation, outlets provided more space to those who openly associated immigrants with criminality and terrorism. Regardless of outlets’ seemingly neutral stance toward restrictive legislation, their disparate coverage of exclusionary lawmaking demonstrates apathy and antipathy toward immigrants, which has repercussions for the maintenance of inequality.}, number={3}, journal={SOCIOLOGICAL FORUM}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Estrada, Emily P. and Ebert, Kim and Lore, Michelle Halla}, year={2016}, month={Sep}, pages={555–576} }
 @misc{okamoto_ebert_2016, title={Group Boundaries, Immigrant Inclusion, and the Politics of Immigrant-Native Relations}, volume={60}, ISSN={["1552-3381"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764215607580}, DOI={10.1177/0002764215607580}, abstractNote={In multiethnic nation-states experiencing new flows of immigrants, political officials and citizens alike have expressed hostility in the form of demonstrations, campaigns, vandalism, and even policies. Yet local communities have also displayed public support for immigrants in the form of protests and advocacy efforts. Past literature has almost exclusively focused on anti-immigrant activity, using theories of group threat and competition, which suggest that new influxes or large concentrations of immigrants should prompt dominant groups to protect their interests, leading to anti-immigrant attitudes and behaviors. We extend the literature by focusing on pro-immigrant behavior, which we define as efforts initiated by established local residents and organizations to include immigrants in the larger community and/or to improve the lives of immigrants. In contrast to theories of group threat, we put forth the group inclusion model, and contend that demographic and political “threats” operate to break down rather than bolster group boundaries. We also find that when the increasing demographic and political presence of immigrants is coupled with the visibility of immigration, immigrant inclusion thrives. Using a data set of pro-immigrant collective action across 52 U.S. metropolitan areas, we generally find support for our model, and discuss the broader implications for immigrant–native relations.}, number={2}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Okamoto, Dina and Ebert, Kim}, year={2016}, month={Feb}, pages={224–250} }
 @article{ovink_ebert_okamoto_2016, title={Symbolic Politics of the State}, volume={2}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2378023116647969}, DOI={10.1177/2378023116647969}, abstractNote={ A symbolic politics approach contends that the meanings policy proposals convey, and the audiences they attract, may matter more than whether they become law. Yet, we know little about the sociopolitical conditions prompting lawmakers to engage in symbolic politics. Using a new data set, we analyze proposals to expand or restrict in-state college tuition for undocumented students and find that national events—House of Representatives Bill 4437 and concurrent immigrant rights protests—encouraged state lawmakers to introduce exclusionary proposals, particularly in states with low shares of immigrants. Our findings indicate that “big events” moderate the influence of state sociopolitical conditions on symbolic political activity. }, journal={Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Ovink, Sarah M. and Ebert, Kim and Okamoto, Dina}, year={2016}, month={Jan}, pages={237802311664796} }
 @article{ebert_okamoto_2015, title={Legitimating Contexts, Immigrant Power, and Exclusionary Actions}, volume={62}, ISSN={["1533-8533"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spu006}, DOI={10.1093/socpro/spu006}, abstractNote={In multi-ethnic nation-states, opposition to immigration has manifested itself in attitudes and behaviors. Past research has typically focused on anti-immigrant attitudes, and relied on threat and competition theories to explain patterns in such attitudes. These theories suggest that perceived threats stemming from new influxes or large concentrations of immigrants should prompt dominant groups to protect their interests, leading to anti-immigrant attitudes. We extend the literature with a focus on anti-immigrant activity, and introduce the legitimating contexts model, which argues that dominant groups may actually hesitate to engage in exclusionary public actions in places where the political and demographic strength of immigrant and ethnic groups is strong. In contrast to theories of group threat, we contend that in contexts with low levels of immigrant political power and demographic strength, anti-immigrant activity is less likely to be noticed, let alone challenged, and thus more likely to become part of the status quo. Extending political opportunity theory, we also claim that conservative elites and voters in local areas coupled with low levels of threat further legitimate anti-immigrant activity. We test these ideas using a new data set of exclusionary action targeted at immigrants in over 50 U.S. metropolitan areas. In support of the legitimating contexts model, we find that low levels of demographic and political threat—when immigrants enjoy less power—alone and coupled with a higher share of conservative voters act to legitimate and encourage restrictive events on the part of noninstitutional actors.

En naciones multietnicas la oposicion a la inmigracion se ha manifestado en actitudes y conductas. La mayoria de investigaciones previas se han concentrado en teorias de amenaza y de competencia para explicar estas actitudes anti-inmigrantes. De acuerdo con estas teorias, la percepcion de amenaza que surge de la llegada o incremento en la concentracion de poblacion inmigrante lleva a los grupos dominantes a proteger sus intereses y a desarrollar actitudes anti-inmigrantes. En este articulo analizamos las actitudes anti-inmigrantes a traves del modelo del contexto legitimador que sostiene que los grupos dominantes vacilan en ejercer acciones publicas excluyentes en lugares donde los inmigrantes y grupos etnicos tienen poder politico y demografico. A diferencia de las teorias de amenaza colectiva, nosotros argumentamos que en contextos donde los inmigrantes tienen poco poder politico y demografico, es menos probable que las actitudes anti-inmigrantes sean visibles y tambien desafiadas, manteniendose asi el status quo. Basados en la teoria de la oportunidad politica, tambien argumentamos que en areas con bajo nivel de amenaza, las elites y los votantes conservadores legitiman las actitudes anti-inmigrantes. Examinamos estas ideas sobre la base de un nuevo conjunto de datos sobre acciones excluyentes dirigidas a la poblacion inmigrante en mas de 50 areas metropolitanas en los Estados Unidos. En concordancia con el modelo del contexto legitimador, encontramos que cuando existen bajos niveles de amenaza demografica y politica -es decir cuando los inmigrantes tienen menos poder- y cuando a la par existe una masa importante de votantes conservadores, estos factores, solos o de manera conjunta, legitiman y fomentan eventos restrictivos por parte de actores no-institucionales.}, number={1}, journal={SOCIAL PROBLEMS}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Ebert, Kim and Okamoto, Dina}, year={2015}, month={Feb}, pages={40–67} }
 @article{ebert_ovink_2014, title={Anti-Immigrant Ordinances and Discrimination in New and Established Destinations}, volume={58}, ISSN={["1552-3381"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764214537267}, DOI={10.1177/0002764214537267}, abstractNote={ Immigrants and their children come to the U.S. in search of upward mobility, but in many contexts they experience discrimination and restrictive political climates. Contexts vary widely, however, given the growing number of new immigrant destinations. Past studies tend to focus on what immigrants and their children are (or are not) doing to adapt to local contexts, a focus that strengthens the perception that immigrants are a “problem” group. In this article, we move the debate away from more familiar economic analyses to assess how destination type and exclusionary ordinances, defined as laws that restrict the rights of and services accorded to immigrant groups, influence “subjective” outcomes, including reports of discrimination among Mexican Americans. Our results reveal three main findings that illustrate the importance of local context. First, individuals living in a county with a greater share of co-ethnics report fewer experiences with discrimination. Second, in counties with an exclusionary ordinance, share of co-ethnics increases reports of discrimination. Finally, being born in the U.S. and speaking English do not provide protection from discrimination; rather, such characteristics shield Mexican Americans from discrimination only in contexts with larger shares of co-ethnics. }, number={13}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Ebert, Kim and Ovink, Sarah M.}, year={2014}, month={Nov}, pages={1784–1804} }
 @inbook{new rural immigrant destinations: research for the 2010s_2014, booktitle={Rural America in a globalizing world}, year={2014} }
 @article{ebert_estrada_lore_2014, title={WHEN ORGANIZATIONS MATTER Threatening Demographics, Supportive Politics, and Immigration Lawmaking}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1742-0598"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x14000125}, DOI={10.1017/s1742058x14000125}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={2}, journal={DU BOIS REVIEW-SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON RACE}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Ebert, Kim and Estrada, Emily P. and Lore, Michelle Halla}, year={2014}, pages={387–417} }
 @article{ebert_okamoto_2013, title={Social Citizenship, Integration and Collective Action: Immigrant Civic Engagement in the United States}, volume={91}, ISSN={["1534-7605"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot009}, DOI={10.1093/sf/sot009}, abstractNote={Collective action has been examined in studies of worker insurgency, homeless protest, the Civil Rights movement and white backlash against racial minorities. Relatively few studies, however, focus on noncontentious forms of immigrant collective action. Utilizing a new data set comprising over 1,000 immigrant civic events, we examine whether the civic and political environment within metropolitan areas affect civic engagement. Our results indicate that political opportunities and resources did not have uniform effects, but that institutional threats to immigrants deterred civic activity. Furthermore, we find that local restrictive efforts instigated solidarity events, while outreach efforts directed at immigrants facilitated community improvement projects. These findings suggest that conditions intensifying group boundaries between immigrants and natives and encouraging collective efficacy are important predictors of immigrant civic engagement.}, number={4}, journal={SOCIAL FORCES}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Ebert, Kim and Okamoto, Dina G.}, year={2013}, month={Jun}, pages={1267–1292} }
 @article{okamoto_ebert_violet_2011, title={¿El Campeón de Los Hispanos? Comparing the coverage of Latino/a collective action in Spanish- and English-language newspapers}, volume={9}, ISSN={1476-3435 1476-3443}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/lst.2011.21}, DOI={10.1057/lst.2011.21}, number={2-3}, journal={Latino Studies}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Okamoto, Dina and Ebert, Kim and Violet, Carla}, year={2011}, month={Jul}, pages={219–241} }
 @article{okamoto_ebert_2010, title={Beyond the Ballot: Immigrant Collective Action in Gateways and New Destinations in the United States}, volume={57}, ISSN={["1533-8533"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.4.529}, DOI={10.1525/sp.2010.57.4.529}, abstractNote={Most studies that attempt to understand immigrant political incorporation focus on patterns of electoral participation and citizenship acquisition. Given that nearly 60 percent of the foreign-born population in the United States is comprised of noncitizens, we argue that past studies miss an important dimension of the immigrant political incorporation process. In this article, we move beyond the ballot by documenting patterns of immigrant protest and conducting an analysis of the conditions under which immigrant organizing occurs in traditional gateways and new destinations. In addition to political opportunities and resources, we argue that conditions heightening group boundaries between immigrants and natives—what we call boundary markers—should play an important role in encouraging immigrants to develop a shared minority status and make collective claims on behalf of the larger group. Using hurdle models, we test our theoretical ideas with a new data set comprised of over 200 immigrant protest events in 52 metropolitan areas across the United States. Our results challenge past studies of immigrant mobilization because we find that inclusionary contexts characterized by greater access to formal political and economic incorporation both hinder and facilitate immigrant organizing, while boundary markers—measured here as threats and segregation—tend to encourage immigrant protest.}, number={4}, journal={SOCIAL PROBLEMS}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Okamoto, Dina and Ebert, Kim}, year={2010}, month={Nov}, pages={529–558} }
 @article{ebert_2010, title={Newcomers, Outsiders, and Insiders Immigrants and American Racial Politics in the Early Twenty first Century}, volume={89}, ISSN={["0037-7732"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0094}, DOI={10.1353/sof.2010.0094}, abstractNote={issue, additional theorizing about how the historical moment of their research may impact their findings would have been useful. Another potential critique of The Good Temp is its focus on the positive aspects of temporary help agency work. Smith and Neuwirth discuss how THS industry staff attempt to secure higher wages for temporary workers, ensure that workplaces are safe, and work to create job ladders for temps. It is not until the final chapter that the authors present evidence on the many negative aspects of temporary work. They clearly do not want to present temporary help agencies as purely benevolent actors. But, the structure of the book separates the criticisms of temp work levied by other researchers – low wages, lack of employer-provided benefits, and limited voice at work – from Smith and Neuwirth’s central analysis. If the authors had woven together throughout the text the negative aspects of temporary work with their own more positive empirical data, a more dynamic and complex picture of temporary work would have been depicted. While much of the terrain of temporary employment has been covered by social scientists, Smith and Neuwirth provide examples of future research that would expand our understanding of temporary work. First, they encourage researchers to undertake comparative analyses across temporary help agencies to increase the generalizability of their findings. Second, they explore the need for research on how temporary workers themselves view temporary help agencies’ attempts to construct “the good temp.” Finally, they suggest the need for future content analyses of self-help and job search literatures to explore the messaging used to push people towards temporary employment options. The Good Temp is an important contribution to the literature on contingent work and sets the stage for additional sociological research on employment relations.}, number={1}, journal={SOCIAL FORCES}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Ebert, Kim}, year={2010}, month={Sep}, pages={357–359} }
 @article{okamoto_ebert_2009, title={Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age}, volume={38}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009430610903800524}, DOI={10.1177/009430610903800524}, abstractNote={Inheriting the City provides one of the most comprehensive and compelling assessments of immigrant incorporation in the United States to date. The book draws upon 3,415 surveys and over 330 interviews to understand the patterns of educational attainment, labor force participation, marriage and family formation, and political participation among 1.5 and second-generation young adults aged 18 to 32 in New York City. Ethnographies of the second generation which were published in the 2004 companion volume, Becoming New Yorkers, also inform the analysis. The authors compare the outcomes and experiences of five immigrant groups—Chinese, Russian Jews, Dominicans, South Americans, and West Indians— to one another and to native-born whites, African Americans, and Puerto Ricans. The comparison between immigrant and native groups is a major strength of the book because the authors are able to evaluate the incorporation of second-generation groups relative to their “proximal hosts”– the racial categories in which they would be placed by others. Previous studies lacked such a comparison, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about second-generation progress or decline. The main findings of the book challenge the major theoretical models of immigrant incorporation, including Gans’ second-generation decline and Portes and Zhou’s segmented assimilation. The second-generation in New York City is incorporating into the different spheres of education, work, culture, and politics, but this process is not the result of maintaining ties to the immigrant community nor is it characterized by the adoption of an oppositional culture. Most secondgeneration young adults are exceeding the educational levels of their parents, and they earn as much or more than native groups by thriving in the mainstream economy, not by working in ethnic niches. The Chinese second-generation, for example, is the most upwardly mobile despite their relatively poor origins, and they are the least likely to retain their parents’ language. They are successful in part because they grow up in households with several adults making financial contributions, and they reside in neighborhoods with good schools. Dominicans are doing the least well of the secondgeneration groups. This is not because they have adopted an adversarial stance to the larger mainstream, but because of the lower levels of family resources upon arrival, exposure to structured disadvantage in segregated neighborhoods, and high levels of remittances sent to the Dominican Republic which divert investments from U.S. communities. To understand the relative success of the second generation, Inheriting the City offers a much more expansive discussion of immigrant origins than past studies of immigrant incorporation. The authors discuss the exceptional nature of immigrant parents and their selectivity; the families and neighborhoods within which the second generation grew up; and how parents’ norms, expectations, and strategic repertoires shaped those of their children. They maintain that the sons and daughters of immigrants fare as well as they do because of the second-generation advantage. The second generation is not “torn between two worlds,” as the straight-line assimilation model suggests. Instead, these young adults are able to develop dynamic strategies where they follow the values and norms of their immigrant parents and the beliefs and cultural scripts of their native-born peers. They are able to combine both cultural systems to their advantage as they navigate the transition to adulthood. This second-generation advantage not only aids in educational attainment and occupational mobility, but it also helps to offset the long-term negative effects of delinquent behavior in adolescence and experiences of racial discrimination. While the authors are optimistic about the success of the second generation, they recognize that African Americans and Puerto Ricans are being left behind. Young adults from these groups are doing less well on}, number={5}, journal={Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Okamoto, Dina and Ebert, Kimberly}, year={2009}, month={Sep}, pages={427–428} }
 @inbook{halfmann_rude_ebert_2005, title={The Biomedical Legacy in Minority Health Policy-Making, 1975–2002}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0275-4959(05)23012-0}, DOI={10.1016/s0275-4959(05)23012-0}, abstractNote={Through content analysis, the study traces the relative prominence of “biomedical” and “public health” approaches in congressional bills aimed at improving the health of racial and ethnic minorities over a 28-year period. It documents a surge of interest in minority health during the late 1980s and early 1990s and highlights the dominance of biomedical initiatives during this period. Drawing on historical methods and interviews with key informants, the paper explains these patterns by detailing the ways in which policy legacies shaped the interests, opportunities, and ideas of interest groups and policy-makers.}, booktitle={Research in the Sociology of Health Care}, publisher={Emerald (MCB UP )}, author={Halfmann, Drew and Rude, Jesse and Ebert, Kim}, year={2005}, pages={245–275} }
 @inbook{demystifying color-blind ideology: denying race, ignoring racial inequalities_2004, booktitle={Skin/deep: How race and complexion matter in the “color-blind” era}, year={2004} }