Welcoming Immigrants

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

Few studies have systematically examined the role of municipal planning in creating immigrant-friendly cities despite the importance of immigration to the growth and development of cities. In this research project I asked to what extent and how planners are involved in immigrant welcoming initiatives. The interviews draw from two perspectives—planning and immigrant affairs—through content analysis of 42 interviews in 30 “welcoming” cities, 28 comprehensive plans, and 17 immigrant integration plans. The analysis revealed that planners are not very engaged with welcoming initiatives or immigrant affairs staff. Planners tinker with land use regulations to accommodate immigrants in specific contexts and are looking for ways to do better outreach. Overall, planning continues as “business as usual” in cities calling themselves welcoming to immigrants. Surprisingly, immigrant affairs staff and planners know little about each other.

Takeaway for practice

Planners provide the ability to think spatially and long term about the rules governing the form and function of urban spaces. Immigrant affairs officials offer in-depth knowledge about the day-to-day struggles of immigrants. Together, planning and immigrant affairs have many shared goals, such as improving engagement with immigrants, helping immigrants navigate the regulatory environment in cities, and creating culturally sensitive and reasonable accommodation.

Keywords:

• immigrant friendly
• immigrant integration
• land use
• municipal planning
• welcoming city

Immigration drives population and economic growth in the United States (New American Economy, 2019). Since the 1970s, the number and share of immigrants have climbed, leading to new settlement patterns in cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural places (Singer, 2015; Singer et al., 2008). This transformation of the American human landscape led to an unprecedented number of local and state anti-immigrant laws, peaking in the 2000s (Esbenshade et al., 2010; Gilbert, 2009; Steil & Vasi, 2014; Varsanyi, 2010a, 2010b). Not all responses have been hostile; some localities created “welcoming,” “sanctuary,” or “immigrant-friendly” policies (de Graauw & Vermeulen, 2016; Majka & Longazel, 2017; Marrow, 2011; Sandoval, 2013; Vitiello, 2014).

The varying local response to immigration is related to the absence of a national immigrant integration policy in the United States. In this article, I use the term immigrant to capture a diverse group of foreign-born people, including naturalized citizens, permanent residents, refugees, asylees, twilight status (those with liminal legal status, such as recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), and unauthorized immigrants. Many families are mixed status, meaning the members have different citizenship and immigration statuses.¹ Each label carries rights that significantly affect the integration process in the United States. Immigrant integration is

the process of economic mobility and social inclusion for newcomers and their children. As such, integration touches upon the institutions and mechanisms that promote development and growth within society, including early childhood care; elementary, postsecondary, and adult education systems; workforce development; health care; provision of government services to communities with linguistic diversity; and more. Successful integration builds communities that are stronger economically and more inclusive socially and culturally. (Migration Policy Institute, 2020)

The current immigrant integration approach in the United States is a fragmented support system built on civil society organizations and government agencies (Bloemraad & de Graauw, 2012a, 2012b). de Graauw (2017) found a growing number of municipal and state initiatives to promote immigrant integration or “welcoming.” Welcoming cities work to create an immigrant-friendly environment. What that looks like varies from place to place; commonly, that means facilitating local immigrant integration, particularly in the areas of economic development, education, public safety, and social and public services, as well as raising the level of cultural competence of service providers and frontline staff, addressing community tension by building connections between U.S.-born and foreign-born residents, and encouraging immigrants to become engaged in community institutions and political processes. In 2016, 41 cities had formal offices for immigrant affairs, and 90 had created mechanisms for immigrant-focused issues, including task forces, boards or commissions, and special programs (de Graauw, 2017). A central player is Welcoming America, a nonprofit organization leading the movement to create “intentional inclusive policies, practices, and norms that enable all residents to live, thrive, and contribute fully—including immigrants” (Welcoming America, 2020). More than 70 local governments and 40 nonprofits across the United States work with Welcoming America (Welcoming America, 2018); see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Welcoming cities and county governments.

Source: Welcoming America, 2018.

This turn toward welcoming occurs in traditional immigrant gateway and new destination cities (Mollenkopf & Pastor, 2016; Price, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2018). Sun and Cadge (2013) found that local conditions and immigrant demographics influenced the varying responses. Similarly, Dominguez (2016) found more receptivity toward immigrants when there already existed a “mainstream” population of immigrants. Those cities that adopt a welcoming stance tend to be politically progressive, with a diverse and educated population base and the fiscal resources to stimulate the economy (de Graauw & Vermeulen, 2016; Huang & Liu, 2018). When leaders view immigrants as economic contributors, municipalities design programs to support, attract, and retain both residents and entrepreneurs (Akhtar, 2015; Huang & Liu, 2019; Lester & Nguyen, 2016; McDaniel, 2014; Zhuang & Chen, 2017).

In this study I found that as more local governments center immigration issues (and racial justice and equity more generally), planning departments remain slow to do so. Historically planners have responded to immigration, particularly in the 19th century (Vitiello, 2009). Vitiello (2009) traced the disappearance of immigration from planning and found that today, planners “focus on place more than on people,” desire to be “culturally neutral,” and uphold the “tradition of rational regulatory planning.” This stance keeps planners “ambivalent in their relationship with immigrant communities” (Vitiello, 2009, p. 246). This ambivalence also erases planning from local immigrant welcoming conversations. Although some planners are experimenting with ways to include immigrants in local planning processes, few examine the impact and value of changing land use regulations to facilitate immigrant integration. This is despite the important role immigrants play in economic activity (including opening small businesses, creating jobs, and contributing to neighborhood revitalization), the sheer number of land use controversies involving immigrants, and the long history of planning academics calling for cultural inclusion and accommodation.

I begin with a brief overview of the connection between planning and immigration by examining the abundance of studies documenting how anti-immigrant politics influence land use planning to regulate immigration at the local level. I also review recommendations for creating more welcoming land use practices in cities, as well as areas of concern that, if addressed, could help push through more welcoming practices in planning. In the context of a politically welcoming environment, I asked: To what extent and how are planners involved in welcoming immigrants? To explore this question, I interviewed 42 planning and immigrant affairs directors in 30 welcoming cities in the United States. I also examined 28 comprehensive plans and 17 immigrant integration plans. The findings show how planners continue to be challenged by a lack of representation in key policy bodies, lack of diversity in the planning staff, and inability to effectively engage immigrants. Those driving the welcoming efforts, often the municipal immigrant affairs office, seldom collaborate with planners or understand the regulatory structure in which planning operates. The absence of planning is apparent in the immigrant integration plans created as part of the welcoming efforts. These plans focus on service delivery and advocacy for organizational change (for example, representation, diversity, cultural competency, and outreach) but do not delve into such things as permitting, code enforcement, zoning, or long-range planning. I end with two recommendations: the need to elevate immigrant voices in planning processes and the importance of pushing for flexibility and informality in planning.

Planning Against, for, and With Immigrants

Much of the published planning scholarship on immigration critiques and documents how land use legislation, municipal ordinances, and planning processes racialize and exclude ethnic minorities and immigrants. These controversies cut across many land use and spatial contexts, including commercial, ethnic districts, historic preservation, neighborhood quality of life, multifamily residential, open space, redevelopment, regional planning/growth control, religious, and single-family residential. Table 1 details the conflicts by land use context. Immigrants introduce new ways to occupy space; at times, immigrants use space differently and alter the built environment in ways the dominant cultural group is unaccustomed to. As these changes become visible, controversy emerges about whether the current planning rules permit them or how to create rules to restrict or eliminate the new practices. The public debates carry racist, classist, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant overtones, sometimes explicitly but other times in more coded and colorblind ways that reinforce the dominant cultural norms (Burayidi, 2003; Gale & Naylor, 2002; Germain & Gagnon, 2003; Harwood, 2005, 2012; Li, 1994; Lung-Amam, 2013). The complaints made by residents (often White, long-time residents, higher income, property owning, and/or native born) put pressure on both political and administrative bodies that leads to code enforcement, changes to municipal codes, building moratoriums, general plan amendments, or new design guidelines. Immigrants feel highly scrutinized as regulatory tools are used to enact anti-immigrant agendas. The inflexibility of rules governing the development and use of land excludes, controls, and influences what, where, and how immigrants use space. This inflexibility affects immigrant integration, for example, by eliminating earning potential or opportunities for community placemaking, which are critical for economic and social integration, respectively.

Table 1 Land use controversies involving immigrants.

Land use/spatial context	Regulatory tool and process	Controversy and critique
Commercial	Amendments to plans, changes to municipal code, ordinances, urban design standards, zoning; determination of public convenience; enforcement of public thoroughfare	Emphasis on uniformity and “universal” design principles limits the ability of immigrant-owned businesses to meet the needs of different cultures, penalizes the small business owner.
Ethnic districts	Racial zoning, special districts, redevelopment, historic overlays, code enforcement	Ethnic districts create opportunities but also reinforce segregation and prevent integration; in some cases, ethnic districts commodify culture for tourism.
Historic buildings and neighborhoods	Historic preservation control and protection measures, revitalization plans, architectural “blending” policies, established advisory boards	Eurocentric norms and sites, reclaiming and upscaling immigrant enclaves, exclusion from the planning process.
Neighborhoods	Creation of quality-of-life ordinances, changes to municipal code, enforcement of codes (property maintenance, parking, garage sales, residential occupancy, control of “nuisances”)	Imposition of neighborhood norms and standards based on the dominant culture and class values, often racially motivated.
Open space	Open space districts, community plans, horse-keeping ordinances, scenic corridor plans, minimum lot size	Maintenance of rural character exclusionary, community garden allowed only until higher or best use available.
Public spaces	Public declarations, changes to municipal code, privatization of public space, park programming and plans, reservation and permits process, licensing and fees, enforcement of trespassing, and anti-solicitation ordinances	Overregulation of public spaces (streets, sidewalks; parks, shopping districts); culturally biased standards and codes; resistance to economic, social, and sporting activities favored by immigrants.
Redevelopment	Demolition of “blighted” properties, aggressive code enforcement, historic designation, capital improvement projects, down- and upzoning, urban renewal, creation of BIDs, regulation of public space, special vendor districts, agreements about the market/subsidized units	Gentrification and displacement, removal of low-income housing, lack of representation on BIDs and community boards.
Regional planning and growth control	Annexation, development restrictions, downzoning, growth control policy, expediting the regulatory process for developers	Preferential treatment, elitism, slow growth proponents associating growth with immigrants, exclusion of immigrants in the planning process.
Religious	Moratoriums, denial of permits, conditional use permits, variances, traffic, design regulations, zoning restrictions (height limits, occupancy, hours of operation, parking, building materials, architectural detail, etc.)	Excessive conditions and restrictions, not evenly applied, bias against non-Christian religions.
Single-family residential	Zoning, special neighborhood zoning, adoption of new design guidelines, design review	Zoning inflexibility, resistance to increased density, lack of culturally appropriate housing choices, standards based on dominant cultural norms, protection of single-family homes.
Multifamily residential	General plan amendments, changes to municipal codes, downzoning, development standards, enforcement of residential occupancy, and other codes	Lack of affordable multifamily housing, limited allowable sites for new construction, renting to unauthorized immigrants restricted.

Note: BID = business improvement district.

Sources: Commercial: Harwood, 2005; Harwood & Myers, 2002; Kumar & Martin, 2004; Pincetl, 1994; Qadeer, 1997; Sandercock, 2000; ethnic districts: Gotham, 2007; Hall & Rath, 2007; Lin, 1998; Loukaitou-Sideris & Soureli, 2012; historic preservation: Armstrong, 1994; Dubrow, 1998; Lin, 1998; Liu & Geron, 2008; Võ, 2006; neighborhood quality of life: Burayidi, 2003; Crawford, 2014; Harwood, 2005; Harwood & Myers, 2002; Jones-Correa, 2006; Martos, 2010; Pader, 2002; Qadeer, 1997; multifamily residential: Esbenshade et al., 2010; Gilbert, 2009; Harwood & Myers, 2002; Vitiello, 2014; open space: Barraclough, 2009; public space: Crawford, 1995; Davis, 1999; Dines, 2002; Germain & Gagnon, 2003; Gilbert, 2009; Harwood & Myers, 2002; Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2014; Radher & Milgrom, 2004; Rishbeth, 2001; Theodore & Martin, 2007; Valenzuela, 2003; Vallianatos, 2014; Varsanyi, 2008; Watson, 1992; Watson & McGillivray, 1994; redevelopment: Betancur, 2002; Hum, 2014; Lipsitz, 2007; Radher & Milgrom, 2004; Theodore & Martin, 2007; regional planning and growth control: Jones-Correa, 2006; Kondo, 2012; Turner & Murray, 2001; religious: Allor, 1994; Biondo, 2006; Gale, 2008; Gale & Naylor, 2002; Germain & Gagnon, 2003; Harwood, 2005; Isin & Siemiatycki, 2002; Meck, 2001; Qadeer, 1997; Sandercock, 2000; and single-family residential: Li, 1994; Lung-Amam, 2013; Mukhija, 2014; Qadeer, 1997; Watson & McGillivray, 1994.

Given these conflicts and the importance of helping newcomers integrate, academics have recommended that planners think more seriously about population complexity, diversity, and immigration in the context of land use (Harwood & Lee, 2015; Pemberton, 2017; Schmiz & Kitzmann, 2017; Zhuang, 2021). These calls have joined a long and deep literature advocating for equity and inclusion in planning (Burayidi, 2015; Davidoff, 1965; Dunn et al., 2001; Krumholz & Forester, 1990; Sandercock, 1997, 1998). Qadeer (2009) explained that rethinking the common ground does not mean different rules for different people; the shift means re-establishing the values, objectives, and outcomes of planning. What varies is the way planners go about achieving them. Qadeer and Agrawal (2011) outlined three areas for planners to focus on when planning for diversity: 1) representation in planning processes, 2) cultural sensitivity and reasonable accommodation in land use and development policies, and 3) access to services.

The literature contains a growing number of empirically based recommendations for land use regulations and planning. Planning for flexibility and informality is a common theme throughout, but to do so requires overcoming the power of dominant cultural norms that view immigrants as nonconforming, disorderly, and deficient (Hum, 2014; Mendez, 2005; Rojas, 2003). Informality or, “informal urbanism,” (Loukaitou-Sideris & Mukhija, 2014, p. 296) often falls outside the range of allowed uses and a “metaphorical order” (Baeten, 2001, p. 56) pushes against breaking down the rigid separation of home and work, residential and commercial, and private and public (Crawford, 2014; Kamel, 2014). For example, some view swap meets as dirty and disorderly. Ledesma and Giusti (2021) found that flea markets and swap meets offer more than a place to buy and sell goods and services; these spaces also create “a sense of place or sense of belonging…that allows for marginalized populations to find safe places where they belong” (p. 12).

The literature is filled with recommendations for planning to better support immigrants, including creating parks and open space that allow diverse uses; forming vendor districts and supporting street/sidewalk vending; allowing small, informal, and home-based businesses; allowing for cultural and other types of symbols, arches, churches, and monuments; providing hiring sites for informal work; amending zoning to make affordable and multigenerational housing easier to build; developing retail area plans, relaxing condominium–mall development approval criteria, and allowing informal uses in these spaces; and creating less stringent regulations for places of worship and other religious-based development (Table 2). In addition, extensive literature exists on ethnic neighborhoods and commercial districts. Sometimes, these districts deviate radically from accepted dominant cultural norms and create economic opportunities for immigrants. Others have warned that without extensive community engagement the district can merely homogenize and commodify culture. Table 2 summarizes these recommendations, teasing out the specific land use strategies that support immigrants.

Table 2 Land use strategies for welcoming cities.

Land use	Goal	Strategy
Residential	Develop diverse housing types and neighborhood differentiation	1) Institute inclusionary zoning. 2) Modify zoning codes to promote co-housing, cooperative housing, flex housing, higher density housing, accessory dwelling units, senior homes, multigenerational housing. 3) Review building, safety, public health codes, and planning standards, particularly for occupancy densities, household use, and the definition of a family.
Places of worship and other religious-based development	Facilitate the development of places of worship and plan for long-term growth to avoid conflicts	1) Assist with siting. 2) Identify which land use categories are most appropriate and permit the use (commercial, residential, mixed use, industrial, institutional). 3) Develop block-level plans and growth policies to address future parking and traffic. 4) Encourage infill development. 5) Develop policies that allow for differences in time, architectural features, site design, seating arrangements, facilities (residential, educational, cultural, health, recreational, leisure), and use of public space.
Parks and open space	Diversify the uses and users of parks and open spaces	1) Develop appropriate programming, management, and design that support a range of cultural experiences. 2) Build in flexibility to accommodate cultural preferences for sports and clubs.
Retail and commercial	Support local immigrant-owned businesses	1) Develop retail area plans. 2) Condominium–mall development approval criteria with specifics about land use, site access, parking standards, traffic capacities, signage requirements, landscaping, and urban design. 3) Encourage informal design elements, graffiti art, street vending, and other practices that animate the urban landscape.
Hiring sites	Provide safe and legal hiring sites	1) Adopt zoning ordinances to allow for hiring sites. 2) Designate specific locations with access to water, restrooms, public transit, and parking.
Home-based business	Create opportunities for income-generating activities in the home	1) Determine criteria for regulating home-based business (noise, parking, working conditions). 2) Help growing home-based businesses transition to more appropriate locations. 3) Zone for mixed use to encourage home-based businesses.
Street and sidewalk vending	Legalize and incentivize informal vending	1) Rethink vision of public spaces. 2) Create a straightforward permit/license process. 3) Remove restriction on esthetics. 4) Create a “one-stop shop” for training and permits. 5) Create vendor districts. 6) Incorporate vendors into BID. 7) Remove differentiated regulations that favor gourmet food trucks over street vending.

Note: BID = business improvement district.

Sources: Parks and open space: Loukaitou-Sideris, 1995; Özgüner, 2011; Price & Whitworth, 2004; Qadeer, 2009; Rishbeth, 2001; Thompson, 2003; Watson, 1992; Watson & McGillivray, 1994; vendor districts and street/sidewalk vendors: Ball, 2002; Browne et al., 2014; Hum, 2014; Kettles, 2014; Martin, 2014; Vallianatos, 2014; home-based businesses: Crawford, 2014; Kim et al., 2018; Watson & McGillivray, 1994; cultural symbols, arches, churches, and monuments: Hume, 2015; providing hiring sites: Valenzuela, 2014; alternative housing: Burayidi, 2003; Pruegger & Cook, 2009; Qadeer, 1997; Watson & McGillivray, 1994; retail and commercial: Hoernig, 2009; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2012; Zhuang, 2009; places of worship and other religious-based development: Agrawal, 2009; Gale, 1999; Hoernig, 2009; and ethnic neighborhoods and commercial districts: Gotham, 2007; Hall & Rath, 2007; Li, 1994; Loukaitou-Sideris & Soureli, 2012.

Implementing many of these recommendations requires representation in the political and administrative realms. Currently, immigrant voices are not adequately represented in planning policymaking spaces critical to the political integration of immigrants. Without immigrant voices in the political realm, it is hard to alter land use legislation, municipal ordinances, and planning processes that provide “reasonable accommodations for the culturally defined needs of ethno-racial minorities,” such as immigrants (Qadeer, 2009, p. 10). In addition, planning staff in the United States still do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve (Jackson et al., 2020). Maintaining planning’s legitimacy requires diverse practitioners, as well as educators and students (Sweet & Etienne, 2011). The pipeline and the critiques of planning education suggest we are far from it. A report by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) described the racial and ethnic diversity of students and faculty as “disappointing” (ACSP Committee on Diversity, 2018). In another study, planning students expressed concern about the disconnect between values of engaging diversity and the actual practice (Jackson et al., 2018).

Today municipal planning departments seldom educate the public about immigrants or shape dialogue about critical issues in the immigrant communities. An outlier is New York City’s Planning Department. The department has produced reports about immigrants since the 1980s, a periodic series with analyses of “immigrant origins, settlement patterns, characteristics and legal pathways of entry, plus a regional overview and examination of the impact of immigrants on the city” (New York City Planning Department, 2021). The literature also has documented many best practices for engaging with immigrants, including the use of mediators, storytelling, safe spaces, and cultural planners (Forester, 2000; García et al., 2019; Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011; Sandercock, 2003; Thompson, 2003). Studies have demonstrated that working with community-based organizations in immigrant neighborhoods is particularly successful when trying to reach non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants (Allen & Slotterback, 2021; Kim et al., 2018; Lee, 2019; Sandoval, 2015). Moreover, relationship-building takes time and energy, but, if done thoughtfully and in collaboration with trusted organizations, meaningful community engagement emerges, as documented by the engagement efforts with Somali refugees in the Twin Cities (MN; Allen & Slotterback, 2021). In the case of redevelopment of Los Angeles’s (CA) MacArthur Park, when the city council advocated for immigrant engagement, grassroots networks more effectively leveraged immigrant capital to improve immigrant neighborhoods without displacement (Sandoval, 2010).

Uncovering the Intersections of Municipal Planning With Welcoming Efforts

Although there is growing attention to diversity and immigration among urban scholars, few have looked comprehensively at how municipal planners have responded in welcoming cities. Most studies on immigrant welcoming have focused on individual cities with little mention of planning.² To begin, I compiled a list of welcoming cities. To be included, the city had to have one of the following: a formal office dedicated to immigrants (46 cities), an immigrant integration plan (22 cities), or membership in Welcoming America (55 cities). In total, the sample included 71 cities in the United States.

I invited the planning and immigrant affairs directors from these 71 cities to participate in a phone interview. Follow-up recruitment concentrated on places with a demonstrated political and financial commitment to integration efforts; for example, an immigrant affairs office (see Table 3). I interviewed 44 people from 30 cities. Twenty-three of the interviewees were planning department directors (and sometimes deputy directors or managers), and 21 were immigrant affairs office directors embedded in a city department or the mayor’s office. In eight cities, I interviewed both a planning director and a director of immigrant affairs.³

Table 3 Cities with immigrant affairs office (Office), Immigrant integration plan (Plan), and Welcoming America membership (Member).

	Entire sample	%	Interviewed	%
Office, plan, member	17	0.24	13	0.43
Office only	14	0.20	7	0.23
Member + office	12	0.17	6	0.20
Member only	23	0.32	2	0.07
Member + plan	3	0.04	1	0.03
Plan + office	2	0.03	1	0.03
Plan only	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total	71	1.00	30	1.00

I completed the interviews between August 2016 and March 2017, when refugees, border security, and interior enforcement were at the forefront of political debates. Though the politics at the time of the interviews certainly shaped the responses, many of the interviewees talked about welcoming efforts dating back a decade or more.⁴ The interviewees were from 18 states. The municipal populations ranged from 12,000 to 2.7 million, with an average of 570,000 (U.S. Census, 2010). Most of these cities were growing; six were shrinking. The foreign-born population in each ranged from 5% to 40%, with an average of 17.5% of the total population. In addition, the mayors of all but one of the cities were affiliated with the Democratic Party. In contrast, all but six of the state governors were affiliated with the Republican Party.

The interviews focused on three things: 1) the interviewee’s professional background and experience working with immigrant populations, 2) familiarity and engagement with municipal welcoming efforts, and 3) land use and other planning-related questions based on areas of controversy and welcoming strategies identified in the literature. Each of the open-ended questions included subtopics and probes about specific issues and strategies drawn from Tables 1 and 2. I gathered 26 comprehensive plans and 17 immigrant integration plans. I collected the comprehensive plans from the cities interviewed; these plans were adopted between 1990 and 2016, with a median date of 2011. The content analysis of the plans focused on how the foreign-born population was explicitly mentioned using a wide variety of keywords and whether and how the plan supported immigrant neighborhoods and business districts.⁵ In most comprehensive plans, the foreign-born population was seldom mentioned explicitly, especially in plans developed before 2011. The 17 immigrant integration plans were produced between 2011 and 2016 and examined to see whether and how municipal planning appeared. Planning, specifically land use, was not directly mentioned in the integration plans, so, instead, I thematically organized the initiatives to look for potential connections to planning.

The Planning View

The planning view is based on 23 interviews with planning directors or senior staff. Each had decades of experience, often in multiple cities. Most were White and male. One was a person of color, and six were female. The cities represented a diverse geography across the United States.

The planning directors interviewed had little experience working closely with immigrant communities. When asked to describe the local immigrant population, planners hesitated and stated they would need to pull up the census data. Although the directors recognized the importance of engaging with immigrants, most admitted they did not know much about their city becoming recognized as welcoming. Common responses included, “It doesn’t impact planning as much as you would think” and “…not something I’ve spent time with.” Planning directors expressed support for many aspects of making a city more welcoming to immigrants, including hiring more diverse planners, especially with language skills; offering staff training; and gathering more than technical knowledge by reaching out to immigrants. A few mentioned initiatives such as creating equity plans or language access plans for limited English speakers. Planners viewed themselves as working in the “back of the house” or behind the scenes. In other words, planners did not see their work as public facing or central to immigrant integration.

Overall, they believed in equity and inclusion, but that had not translated into concrete actions. In most departments, the engagement efforts remained limited and experimental. One planning director explained, “We are trying to understand them [immigrants],” and the planners were asking questions such as “Who is missing?” and “What can we do differently?” Another director admitted their department had “less success than more.” Some planning departments relied heavily on immigrant affairs staff to engage immigrants when doing outreach. Others hired translators or used earphones at meetings. One planning department contracted with nonprofits to reach immigrants. Most concluded that the day-to-day life of the planner had not changed in response to welcoming efforts. One director summed it up succinctly: “Planning is just starting to figure out ways to represent the policy direction.”

Many of the welcoming cities were in states that did not support any explicit advocacy for immigrants. Planners avoided the appearance of favoritism by not calling out immigrants in any planning document (some states explicitly prohibit this). Planning directors discussed having to frame efforts as being “good for everyone”: “Especially in this political climate, [our city] is not giving immigrants special treatment. It’s imperative to talk about it in this intersectional frame of reference to avoid divisive rhetoric of only helping refugees or immigrants.” Another pointed to the contradiction: “We can’t treat people as special, but then how do you protect vulnerable populations?” Another pointed out that zoning is “written from a place of privilege” that does not “consider the diversity in the community.” Although the current politics present challenges for advancing a welcoming agenda for immigrants, treating everyone the same is a deep-seated value in the planning profession.

Treating everyone the same privileges the dominant cultural group and lays the groundwork for controversial approaches when responding to immigration at the local level. Planners did not see this as a problem because little controversy existed compared with anti-immigrant cities. In welcoming cities, the anti-immigrant individuals and organizations wielded less control in shaping the local regulatory environment. That said, planners in welcoming cities also saw little need to change land use regulations and maintained the “treating everyone the same” stance, except for a few who “tweaked” codes to accommodate cultural differences. Overall, very little regulatory change was underway, and where there was a change, it was framed in terms not of welcoming immigrants but of encouraging economic development through flexibility.

The emphasis was on practicing patience and flexibility within the existing regulatory boundaries. Planners emphasized looking for creative solutions for immigrants to meet regulatory requirements instead of changing the regulation or relying on citations and fines. Planners recognized that planning is different in other countries, and so education can foster compliance. Planners coached both property owners and contractors who did not speak fluent English in the permitting process. Some planning departments had visual materials to explain technical aspects of regulations, expressly to point out what meets code and what does not. Planners found these visual tools useful for English and non-English speakers alike.

The lack of engagement with immigrants and the emphasis on not giving special treatment help explain why immigrants are nearly invisible in long-range planning.⁶ When mentioned, the foreign-born appeared descriptively in the demographic (seven plans), community (six plans), or economic (five plans) sections. Mention in other sections, such as vision, neighborhoods, land use, transportation, and human services, occurred in a few plans. This absence was not surprising given the emphasis on treating everyone the same. Interviewees emphasized that the political climate did not give them room to target at-risk or underserved populations in the way many thought necessary.

Three plans stood out among the 26 reviewed (adopted 2005, 2012, and 2015) because each went beyond the mere mention of the foreign-born in the demographic section. These comprehensive plans included a vision or guiding principles that embraced a respect for the city’s diversity and acknowledged the contributions of its many unique populations. Each described the foreign-born population in the demographic or community sections by talking about immigrant and refugee trends plus contributions to the cultural richness, neighborhood vibrancy, and economic growth of a city. The economic sections discussed the importance of integration into the workforce and the importance of immigrant-owned businesses to the local economy. The neighborhood sections highlighted the need to preserve and support immigrant neighborhoods and economies by providing affordable housing and protecting against displacement. The human services sections highlighted the critical role services play in integration, including emergency response, public safety, health services, and public education. One plan mentioned other services such as infrastructure maintenance and building code enforcement. Some had specific initiatives in place to engage newcomer immigrant populations. Finally, land use or transportation sections identified the importance of providing equitable access to transit-supported, walkable, and bikeable neighborhoods to serve a range of socioeconomic groups, ethnicities, household types, and abilities, including immigrants and refugees. Some plans encouraged incentive zoning and other tools to curb displacement in transit-dense communities, culturally significant districts, and neighborhoods with proposed new transit facilities or another type of public investment. Another was experimenting with form-based codes to build in flexibility.

The Immigrant Affairs View

The immigrant affairs view draws from interviews with 21 people working for local government, primarily immigrant affairs directors. They had more varied professional backgrounds than the planners, including human services, community development, nonprofit management, journalism, social services, immigrant integration, public policy, law, and social work. More than half were people of color, often immigrants or from an immigrant family, and female. These interviews covered different regions of the United States.

Those working in immigrant affairs strove to put the needs of immigrants on the municipality’s agenda. Unlike the planners, these directors knew the immigrant communities intimately: They could describe where the immigrants were from, where they lived, how to reach them, and the significant issues they faced. Immigrant affairs directors were central to the welcoming efforts, often leading the immigrant integration plan to improve access to city services and integrate immigrants in various city decision-making processes. Most of those interviewed held regular meetings with administrative leadership to educate and disseminate information about immigrants, cultural diversity, and national refugee and immigrant policy.

Unlike the comprehensive plans, the immigrant integration plans focused on immigrants and included strategies for targeted subpopulations, such as refugees and asylum-seekers, recently arrived, youth, parents, undocumented/unauthorized, unaccompanied minors, new Americans, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the receiving community (native-born residents). Table 4 shows the strategies and initiatives of the seven primary areas: economy, education, public safety, services, public service providers, culture and community, and civic engagement and representation. The focus was on immediate needs and service delivery. The perspectives of municipal planners were noticeably absent. Few plans mentioned planning as affecting the integration process. For example, directors did not link the challenge of finding affordable housing or access to jobs to land use, zoning, or transportation planning. Although many integration plans discussed business district creation, the plans said little about the applicable codes and regulations that dictate what uses occur where, the conditions, and the permitting and entitlement processes.

Table 4 Immigrant integration plans.

Major component	Examples of strategies and initiatives
Economy	Assistance to small businesses, promotion of patronage, workforce development, hiring initiatives, retention of foreign students
Education	Vocational, literacy, and language programs; early childhood education; financial literacy
Public safety	Crime prevention, legal assistance, emergency preparedness, fraud awareness, local protection for undocumented
Services	Public health, wellness, mobility, naturalization, housing, mentoring, language access (translation, interpretation), service outreach, rights awareness, parent mentoring and support
Service providers and front-line staff	Intercultural training, staff capacity/language training, immigrant-centered training, intra/intergovernmental cooperation
Culture and community	Cultural events, interaction and building relationships, support for immigrant community organizations, building awareness about immigrants
Civic engagement and representation	Special offices for immigrant affairs, welcoming ordinances, mechanisms for representation, collection of data/metadata, shaping regional/national narratives

Immigrant affairs directors, when asked about planning, responded, “We’re not engaged with planners.” Immigrant affairs interviewees said they reached out to every department including planning, but at the end of the day, when planners did not participate, they slid down the priority list. With limited resources and time, immigrant affairs staff prioritized police, fire, parks, library, and other city services, not regulatory ones such as planning. The immigrant affairs directors acknowledged that trying to “change the culture of a city that has not thought about immigration is difficult.” One even went as far as to say, “Planning does not look through a diversity or welcoming lens.” Yet they did hope the meetings, reports, plans, and outreach support would eventually open more possibilities.

Immigrant affairs staff did not understand planning. One immigrant affairs director said that planning “doesn’t have implications for immigrants and refugees.” The lack of knowledge about planning meant that immigrant affairs directors often saw planners as helpful when they needed census data and maps to highlight immigrant poverty areas, calls for service, and other place-based measures. Few recognized zoning, land use, and comprehensive plans as influencing integration. One director dismissed planning as “just zoning meetings” but later discussed the struggle of immigrants with the permitting process and her involvement in the redevelopment of a vacant lot for a new high school as if neither had any relation to planning. Immigrant affairs offices are relatively new to municipal government; both sides are still getting to know each other, but the relationship with planning has much untapped potential.

As the interviews progressed, immigrant affairs discussed two areas of interaction with planners: language access and community engagement. Many welcoming cities required each city department to develop a plan to ensure that all city residents can access necessary services and information. These plans included translating materials into multiple languages and hiring bilingual staff, offering interpretation at meetings, and building cultural competency. In planning, the focus of language access was on development processes, particularly permitting and licensing. Immigrant affairs directors also pointed out that simply providing language assistance was not providing full access to municipal government and all of its services.

Immigrant affairs directors spent time educating immigrants about city rules and procedures as well as training city staff on how to interact and communicate with immigrants in culturally appropriate ways. In some places, cultural orientation sessions provided immigrants with information about living in the United States, including instructions on rental/leasing agreements, flush toilets, recycling, calling the police, registering a child for school, and checking out books from the library. Basic municipal codes and regulations, such as receiving necessary approval before a house remodel and not using the front lawn for vehicle parking, were often included in these discussions.

Immigrant affairs directors expressed a desire to engage with planners. A few partnerships were happening, including a case of grant writing for transit accessibility and helping planners define what equity meant for immigrants. Immigrant affairs directors also mentioned housing affordability, access to jobs, neighborhood safety, and park improvements for future partnerships with planners. The directors could quickly rattle off a list of concerns related to codes and regulations creating challenges for immigrants, but had not considered how these same planning tools could be altered to support integration. In a few cases, immigrant affairs staff were working with planners on comprehensive planning to help with the vision statement and develop measurable objectives and meaningful metrics relevant to immigrant neighborhoods.

Discussion: Equity Versus Equality

In this study I explored how municipal planners involved themselves in welcoming initiatives, the steps they are taking to become more immigrant friendly, and the future challenges in land use planning. Planners lack presence in the citywide welcoming conversations, missing out on opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with immigrant affairs staff, immigrant communities, and immigrant-serving organizations. Immigrant affairs staff do not understand the full potential of planning, missing out on the ways planning might support immigrant integration. Planners can bring both spatial and long-term thinking into the welcoming conversation; for example, connecting the form and function of the city to the immediate needs of immigrants (housing, employment, and transportation). Combining the technical expertise of planners and immigrant affairs with the experiential knowledge and cultural practices of immigrants could lead to developing flexible and culturally appropriate land use regulatory schemes, creating strategies to connect housing and employment with transportation, and adding amenities to immigrant neighborhoods without causing gentrification (Garfinkel-Castro, 2021). Both planning and immigrant affairs play essential roles in making cities more welcoming to immigrants; each has something to gain by partnering.

In the interviews, planners stated they valued equity, but their actions emphasized equality. This challenge goes beyond planning for immigrants; planners have struggled to prioritize equity in comprehensive planning (Loh & Kim, 2021), climate and sustainability plans (Schrock et al., 2015), and regional planning (Zapata & Bates, 2015). In this study, planning directors used language that indicated a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and at the same time could not describe the immigrant populations, saw little need to change in response to the growing immigrant populations, did not see planning as part of the immigrant integration process, and admitted engagement efforts with immigrants needed improvement.

The emphasis on equity in welcoming conversations creates an uncomfortable space for planners who often strategically act in a piecemeal fashion in the “back of the house,” safely out of the public spotlight and under the radar of conservative state legislators and anti-immigrant activists. The few planning departments collaborating with immigrant affairs reported more success in reaching immigrants and including equity outcomes in their plans and policies. Doing so shifted the focus from universality to meeting the needs of particular groups and supporting different community values. As one planner commented, with collaboration, planners might realize their desire to “remove as many obstacles as possible from the regulatory and policy structure” and help immigrants thrive economically, socially, and politically. Often, making these adjustments helped more than just immigrants.

Creating a Welcoming Agenda in Planning

To build a welcoming agenda in planning, planners must continue to elevate immigrant voices in planning processes and look for ways to build flexibility and informality in planning.

Elevate Immigrant Voices

The planners in this study pointed to the need for diversity in their organization and city decision-making bodies, particularly planning commissions, as well as a need to do better outreach and engagement with immigrants. Planning directors acknowledged that the staff and commissions lacked diversity; some saw no change in the last 40 years, and others saw shifts but not to the point of reflecting the community. Others pointed to token representation: “Someone is kind of Hispanic,” or they had a “Black once.” Many had bilingual staff and commissioners but not always in the languages needed. In addition, planners must examine their internal operations to understand how their organizations reproduce racial inequality; for example, by concentrating immigrant staff at the bottom of planning organizations and legitimizing the unequal distribution of resources, including spending more time supporting White people or wealthier neighborhoods over other groups (Solis, 2020).

Similarly, the planning commission holds power to recommend rule changes, shape policy, and influence a city’s vision. Because land use regulations and development processes privilege the status quo, diverse representation on planning commissions is critical to shifting the legal structure in planning, specifically to make it more responsive to diversity and immigrant interests (Allor & Spence, 2000). In interviews, planners asserted that the planning commission actions often “deeply affect…policy” and immigrant representation would “add to a deeper discussion.” Without representation, the state and the dominant cultural and economic groups will continue to dictate the terms of inclusion (Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011; Sandercock, 2003).

Interviewees suggested strategies to improve representation on commissions, including actively recruiting instead of passively waiting for applicants, emphasizing that citizenship is not a requirement, and reminding immigrants that they are qualified to serve because “they are experts in their own lives.” In one case, the immigrant affairs office prepared potential planning commission applicants through mentorship and leadership training. A more radical approach, and one that falls outside of planning, is to give immigrants the right to vote in municipal elections (Hayduk, 2004). Because immigrants lack political representation, community engagement is critical. The handful of planning departments making inroads found that the most effective engagement occurred when linked to trusted organizations (including immigrant affairs) and held in places that immigrants frequented. Rethinking means looking beyond neighborhood associations and shifting to informal networks, nonprofits, community-based organizations, places of worship, schools, and senior centers. One planning department collaborated with community-based organizations for outreach efforts, including paying the organization for the time and effort to bring immigrants to the planning table.

Push for Flexibility, Support Informality

Engaging in a welcoming conversation provides planners with the space to plan with immigrants as contributors, not lawbreakers (Ball, 2002; Browne et al., 2014; Hume, 2015; Kettles, 2014; Mukhija & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014). Planners interviewed talked about how changing what is politically acceptable requires slow and steady modification so that “new land uses are accepted and incorporated over time.” Too fast and too different leads to community controversy and the tightening of land use regulations. The slow and steady approach also included a fair amount of “experimentation” and “don’t ask, don’t tell” over more formal changes. In one case, immigrant homeowners constructed fences a few inches over code. Planners “looked away” because the improvements looked “great,” and they wanted to be “immigrant-friendly.” In another case, planners noticed the two-story commercial structures in Latino and Asian immigrant neighborhoods. They wondered whether a commercial use on the second story would be economically viable, because most large developers claimed it was not. The planners found this type of development “works for them [immigrants]: They bring in other small businesses to create a sense of business life and cohesion.… [The development also] supports greater density…and zoning allows it!”⁷ These examples show how planners can support positive narratives about how immigrants “contribute to constructing and appropriating space” (Ledesma & Giusti, 2021, p. 342).

Those working in places with relaxed zoning laws believed this legal structure created an environment where planning was “more respectful,” was responsive to community needs, and created opportunities for lots of people, not just immigrants. Less restrictive zoning meant fewer “bureaucratic hurdles.” For example, planners in cities moving from use-based to form-based codes predicted planning would shift from something “arbitrary and inflexible” to a more “flexible” structure to accommodate different populations better. In one city, a form-based code meant that the immigrant population could build a cultural space and community center next to medical, financial, and educational uses. Under the use-based code, “none of this would have been allowed” because of requirements to incorporate more separation between the uses and “onerous parking and other standards.”

Conclusion

Planners should recognize the important role immigrants play in the stability and vibrancy of cities as motivation to meet the needs and desires of their local immigrant communities. Creating a welcoming agenda in municipal planning requires a process that centers equity over equality. To navigate this political complexity, planning and immigrant affairs should become closer allies. Both planning educators and practitioners must address the lack of diversity in the profession. Finally, planners should develop meaningful and long-lasting relationships with immigrant leaders and advocates to explore flexible and culturally appropriate land use and development policies, rules, and regulations that support immigrant integration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Much appreciation goes to my research assistants, Devin Day, Amanda Wolf, and Christopher Di Franco, who assisted with recruiting participants and coding data. I give special thanks to Zhixi Zhuang, Bob White, Maria Schiller, Ivis García, Andrea Garfinkel-Castro, Bruce Parker, and Pratiti Tagore, and the three anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stacy Anne Harwood

STACY ANNE HARWOOD ([email protected]) is a professor in the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah.

Notes

1 Immigrants are a diverse group of people whose experience as newcomers depends on many factors besides citizenship and immigration status, including social class, education, gender, religion, English language acquisition, and phenotype, as well as contextual factors including the history of immigration and the existence of civil society organizations supporting immigrants in the receiving community.

2 Before beginning data collection, I assumed that planning departments in welcoming cities would be discussing land use and immigration more explicitly. However, this was not the case, and so much of the findings focus on the disconnect and lost opportunity between planning and immigrant affairs.

3 “Immigrant Affairs Office” captures a wide variety of office names; for example, International & Immigrant Affairs Office, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Mayor’s Office of New Americans, Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, Office of Multicultural Affairs, and Immigrant Resource Center. Some offices reside in the mayor’s office and others in a city department.

4 Local welcoming efforts accelerated under Barack Obama, quieted significantly with Donald Trump, and now have resurfaced with Joe Biden as the U.S. president.

5 I also asked the interviewees what to look for in the comprehensive plans. One limitation of this approach is that I may have missed some practices that support immigrants. In addition, specific regulations, other plans, and policy documents were not systematically reviewed unless called out in the interviews.

6 Words such as immigrant, refugee, newcomer, new American, foreign-born, and undocumented appeared in 17 of the 26 comprehensive plans.

7 Planners were not flexible in matters of public health and safety; for example, slaughtering a goat in a driveway, parking on the lawn, or cooking with a grill intended for outside use inside a house.