11 Who's Afraid of Immigration?

21 Pages·2014·0.5 MB·English

11 Who’s Afraid of Immigration?
The Eff ects of Pro- and Anti-Immigrant
Threatening Ads among Latinos, African
Americans, and Whites
es Bethany Albertson and
ci
a
cr Shana Kushner Gadarian
o
m
e
D
al
er
b
Li
n
n i
o
ni In 2010, an Arizona law aimed at identifying and deporting unauthorized
pi
O immigrants attracted national attention, and several politicians (including
c
bli Senator John McCain) endorsed the law in the context of their political
u
P campaigns. In his campaign ad, McCain blames unauthorized immigrants
d
an for “drugs and human smuggling, home invasion (and) murder” before call-
n
atio ing for Arizona to “complete the danged fence.” Senator McCain did sur-
gr vive his tough primary challenge, and many politicians see anti-immigrant
mi
m rhetoric as a winning political campaign strategy. In June 2006, Republican
3, I Brian Bilbray picked up the disgraced Randy Cunningham’s congressional
1
20 seat in a wealthy Southern California district just outside of San Diego.
04, His Democratic opponent, Francine Busby, ran against what she termed
n
a the “culture of corruption” in the Republican Party, but Bilbray, who ran
J
d L., 621 a campaign based on opposition to unauthorized immigration, won out
Davi6211 (teLraiVsteicllse o2f0 t0h6e) .d Tishtrei ccta: manp aeixgtnr’es msueclyc ewsse aseltehmy sd siustrrpicrits iwnhge greiv evno ttehres wchearrea icn-
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 npoai Agdnsa nasgntertari- toielfgl eylgo, aswli niegm ntmohteigeir r tajhotiabotsn t throhe u eetnffod reoiccct uievmmeneeerngstsee sdo afi mgtahmiensi gear saa pan ptpse.raolms iisn ennott cwamel-l
nsen, Raoken, IS uanndd etrhset opordec. uInrs poarsr ttioc ualtatrit, uthdeerse o ins ail lleagcakl oimf emxpigerraimtioenn taarle w tyoprkic oanll yt hine fteorpriecd,
Haob from cross-sectional data. In this chapter, we explore how immigration
y P.; cis, H appeals that evoke the public’s anxieties infl uence immigration attitudes.
man, Garand Fran eRgeypE. uvIbonlk ircienasgpn o aCnnshxeri eitsto y Ct ohavene gnre oinmne rm(aRli -gt roUantteiao hon)f ipcsro niltoiitctii cazaenld re hxpecotelopitrtiiiccoi aanbnaosl ucfato mrim p“mpailigagynri ansttgiro atnto-,
Freeylor primal fear” (quoted in Kiely 2006, 4A). In particular, many of the fears
© Ta evoked by immigration ads and rhetoric implicitly or explicitly reference
Latinos as the source of the fear. As governor, Pete Wilson claimed that
California had an “immigration emergency” and backed Proposition 187,
which was designed to deny social services to unauthorized immigrants.
Who’s Afraid of Immigration? 287
Commercials supporting the proposition featured the voice over “they just
keep coming” coupled with images of people running across the freeway,
dodging cars. The Los Angeles Times describes a similar ad run by the
1996 Dole presidential campaign as follows:
the viewer sees a sea of menacing Latino faces—only Latino faces—
invading the state, fi lling its schools and prisons and victimizing a non-
Latino “we.” “We pay the taxes. We are the victims. Our children get
es shortchanged,” the ad says as the camera zooms in on a classroom full
ci
cra of white teenagers.
o
m
e
D While Republicans have run notable campaigns invoking anti-illegal
al
er immigration rhetoric, the issue sometimes cuts across partisan lines. Presi-
b
Li dent Bill Clinton portrayed threatening scenarios involving unauthorized
n
n i immigrants in his 1995 State of the Union address:
o
ni
pi
O All Americans are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal
c
bli aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be
u
P held by citizens or legal immigrants; the public services they use impose
d
an burdens on our tax payers. That’s why our administration has moved
n
atio aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of
gr new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever
mi
m before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefi ts
3, I to illegal aliens.
1
0
2
04, Clinton off ers as a given that “all Americans” share these concerns, ref-
n
a erencing job competition, abuse of public services, criminality, and “alien”
J
d L., 621 status. Given that many of the campaign ads focus on Latino immigration,
Davi6211 winefl uaeren cien tAermesetreidca inns wohf edtihff eerr eanptp reaaclsia tlh baatc pklgaryo ounn dfse adrisff aebreonuttl yi.mmigration
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 taidodnPr oeblsietsci cotihmainses s q,r euhgeouswtlia ordnlyo tsphoeruoonupdgle ha rlaearanmc te bxtoepl eltsrh iamebseeon uatt.l aiWmrmems ?itg eIrsnat t ittohhneis, iscnohfl atuhpeetne qcr,eu weosef-
nsen, Raoken, IS tAhfrreiacatenn Ainmg errhiceatonrsi,c aanbdo wuth iitmesm siegpraartaiotenl yo. nW phoilleit ipcraelv aiotutist uwdoersk o hf aLs aetxinaoms-,
Haob ined the eff ect of threat on immigration attitudes, and racial diff erences in
y P.; cis, H immigration attitudes, we are interested in whether threatening appeals
man, Garand Fran ttpihloaeny i moofum tt ihgdirsiffa stetirouendn yta ltyits i attumhdaoetn sw go enr a iocninvaeel s rgtairgcoaiuatepl sgh.r ooMwuop ts hat rtp eaar ettevinmioienu,gs b wiumto mrokni gefr oaccotuinostners i aboduns-
Freeylor aff ect three racial groups. We expect and demonstrate that racial identity
© Ta moderates the eff ect of threatening appeals.
The second main question in this chapter is whether diff erent types
of threat (the threats immigrants pose to the country vs. the threats that
immigrants face) can be used to aff ect immigration attitudes. We vary
288 Bethany Albertson and Shana Kushner Gadarian
the content of threatening ads to determine whether advocates for immi-
grants’ rights can use threat to encourage less punitive attitudes towards
immigrants. The vast majority of research on threat and immigration
focuses on threats that immigrants pose to the country such as economic,
security, and cultural threats. This focus is understandable given the con-
ventional uses of threat in immigration debates. However, there are other
threatening dimensions to the immigration debate, such as the threat that
immigrants face from border patrol and unsafe work environments. Can
es emotional appeals about these topics be used eff ectively by immigrants’
ci
cra rights advocates?
o
m
e
D
al
er IMMIGRATION POLICY ATTITUDES
b
Li
n
n i Previous research suggests that attitudes toward unauthorized immigration
o
ni can be shifted, in part, due to the multiple bases of opinion. In cross-sec-
pi
O tional work, Alvarez and Butterfi eld (2000) argued that anti-immigration
c
bli attitudes are rooted in cyclical nativism and responsive to economic trends.
u
P A recent analysis of public opinion trends shows that Americans hold rela-
d
an tively positive views of immigrants themselves, yet are split over whether
n
atio immigrants benefi t the U.S. economically and culturally or are a net burden
gr on the state (Sevogia and Defever 2010). In their study of attitudes about
mi
m Proposition 187, Lee and Ottati (2002) found that support for the anti-
3, I immigration bill was rooted in out-group bias, but was also related to eco-
1
20 nomic worries and support for the rule of law. Furthermore, they found that
04, each of these factors has its own independent eff ect, rather than economic
n
a or rule of law concerns acting as legitimizing arguments for out-group bias.
J
d L., 621 Also, while Lapinski et al. (1997) noted that Americans express negativity
Davi6211 toofw tahredir imsammipglrea nbtesl ioevf emd otsht ant aitmiomnaiglirtaienst,s thweoyr ka lshoa rfdoeurn dth tahna tp aelompoles tb hoarlnf
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 htuuenrraeeus a tahnnoddr ai tzbaeoldeu nitm ths.ma Alfig sbr oealfti ie2ov0ne0 da6 nt,hd ma bta eijlmoiermviteiidegs rt aohnfa ttps t oehlnle r rgiecoshvp etohrnnedm Uene.nSts.t wwwoiatrshr niteohdte iadrbo coiunulgt-
nsen, Raoken, IS esunpopuogrht tfoo rk deeecpr euansdinogc uimmmenitgerda tiimonm wigarsa lnotws eoru tth oafn t ihne tUhe.S e,a brluyt 1t9h9e 0lesv (ePle owf
Haob Research Center for the People and the Press [Pew] 2006).
y P.; cis, H While research suggests that attitudes towards unauthorized immigra-
man, Garand Fran tptiiooaslnlsy imb ciiloginthyflt. ibcBetei ncmagau ilsdleee aaibmsl,e m,w isego r bafetailroi enlvi teat ltteth ietauxt dpteehsre ismaer eean trttaoitlou wtdeeodsr kicn ah nma sub eletx icpphlleoa,rn epgdeo dtteh niins-
Freeylor the context of a political campaign or in an experimental setting. In their
© Ta experimental work, Domke, McCoy, and Torres (1999) fi nd that attitudes
toward and beliefs about immigration are responsive to shifting frames.
Subjects who read about immigration framed as an economic issue rely
on their racial predispositions, while those who read about immigration
Who’s Afraid of Immigration? 289
framed as an ethical issue do not. In other experimental work, Brader,
Valentino, and Suhay (2008) fi nd that immigration attitudes depend on the
ethnicity of the immigrants, as well as whether immigration is framed as
a threat or a benefi t. They fi nd evidence that white subjects made anxious
about the economic costs of low-skilled Latino immigration are the least
supportive of immigration policies. We add to this literature by experimen-
tally testing how two threatening messages aff ect the attitudes of whites,
Latinos, and African Americans.
s
e
ci
a
ocr A. Racial and Partisan Diff erences in Immigration Attitudes
m
e
D Immigration attitudes in the U.S. diff er by racial group. Whites and African
al
er Americans are more likely to worry about the eff ects of immigration on the
b
Li economy and the fate of workers rather than about the fate of immigrants
n
n i themselves. When given a choice of saying that immigrants strengthen the
o
ni country with their talents or burden the country in a 2006 Pew study, 55
pi
O percent of whites and 54 percent of blacks answered that immigrants are a
c
bli burden while 64 percent of Latinos answered that immigrants strengthen
u
P the country. Racial diff erences are also apparent in attitudes about access to
d
an social services. For example, 20 percent of whites believe that unauthorized
n
atio immigrants should be eligible for social services, in contrast to 43 percent
gr of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos who hold this belief. In general, people
mi
m are more supportive of the idea that the children of undocumented immi-
3, I grants should be allowed in public schools, but support also diff ers by race:
1
20 93 percent of Hispanics, 79 percent of blacks, and 64 percent of whites
04, support access to public schools for the children of unauthorized immi-
n
a grants (Pew 2006). On the whole then, Latinos seem more concerned about
J
d L., 621 immigrants themselves and are more supportive of immigrants’ access to
Davi6211 geffo veecrt nomf iemntm seigrrvaictieosn w ahnidle iwmhmitiegsr aanntds bolna ctkhse aerceo nmoomrey .concerned about the
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 aasft tIehnr e ta hc 2oe 0uw0na7trr y Gi’nsa lmIluroapsq tP. ioWmllp,h o3ilr1et apbneotrt chpe rnwotbh olietfme Ls, a attnhindeo sLse anctoainnmdoe sdm n ioamsmtm eimidg priamotrimtoaning tpr aoistlsiioucnye
nsen, Raoken, IS as aM porroeb tlheman, thhaelyf dofid L saot ifnoors d iinff earne nOt crteoabsoern s2.007 poll worried that either
Haob they or someone close to them would be deported, and 40 percent reported
y P.; cis, H some type of discrimination due to their immigration status (Pew Hispanic
man, Garand Fran CAfoemrnmetrelyirc a2lin0bse0 ro7an)l. ioLmnam tiiimngormsa tiagiorrnea t pgioeonnli.ec rFya il(rlSsyat -nmgceohnreeezr al2itb0ioe0nr6a )al, nbthdu atm nL iawdtdihnlieot-esis na coroerm nAeof trL iucanatiin--
Freeylor nos are more supportive of increasing immigration than low-income and
© Ta Latinos in the second generation and beyond. Similarly, Branton (2007)
fi nds that Latinos are less likely than Anglos to believe that unauthorized
immigrants hurt the economy, but that Latino attitudes vary depending on
level of acculturation.
290 Bethany Albertson and Shana Kushner Gadarian
Additionally, Latinos’ immigration attitudes are not fi xed, but rather
are aff ected by both political context and the information environment.
Latinos’ group consciousness, or the belief that Latinos’ fates are linked,
increases support for increasing immigration (Sanchez 2006). Abrajano
and Singh (2009) fi nd that Latinos’ news sources shape their awareness
of immigration policy as well as support for immigration reform. Lati-
nos who rely primarily on Spanish-language television news were more
aware of George W. Bush’s immigration reform proposals, more likely
es to believe that unauthorized immigration helps the U.S. economy, and
ci
cra more likely to support a guest worker program than Latinos who rely
o
m primarily on English-language news. They attribute these fi ndings to
e
D Spanish-language media’s more positive coverage of immigration reform
al
er than English-language news.
b
Li Latinos might view the typical political campaign that references
n
n i immigration with great suspicion. Pantoja and Segura (2003) found that
o
ni 70 percent of Latinos in California thought that the debate over Propo-
pi
O sition 187 created a climate that facilitated discrimination and racism
c
bli against the overall Latino community. Together, these fi ndings suggest
u
P that an information environment that makes group consciousness salient
d
an and focuses on immigrants themselves may increase Latinos’ support for
n
atio pro-immigration policies.
gr African Americans are less supportive of immigration than Latinos, par-
mi
m ticularly when African Americans are or believe themselves to be in eco-
3, I nomic competition with immigrant workers. Surveys of African Americans
1
20 in the 1990s found that between 53 percent and 65 percent of respondents
04, wanted to decrease immigration (Nteta 2006). Perceptions of economic and
n
a political competition between blacks and immigrants tend to depress Afri-
J
d L., 621 can American support for immigration policy (Bobo and Hutchings 1996).
Davi6211 Iinnfl gueennecrea lo, nt hbela rcekla ptievrec eepctoionnosm ainc ds taatttuitsu odfe sr.a Icnia nl egigrohubposr hhoaosd asn w ihmepreo rLtaatni-t
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 natoro esv miaerower ebe lcliaokcnekloy am tnoidc ha Lallarybt ioandro vn aeecngotaantgiovemed s ictree arlaentoditv ypep oteloist iatchbaeoli urin tb tLelaarcetiksnt son sae,is ga ihrnebc moormosr,p eba ltliaikbcelkleys,
nsen, Raoken, IS a2n0d0 6a)r.e Amdodriet iroenluaclltya,n bt etoli eefxs tethnadt aiffim rmmiagtriavnet as citniocnre paoseli ctiaexse tso, Ldaetcirneoass e(G thaye
Haob number of people who work hard, and worsen culture all lead blacks to
y P.; cis, H more strongly support limiting immigration (Nteta 2006). Concern about
man, Garand Fran tbthwlaeoc -ektcsho;i nridnos m thoicef e2bff0l ae0cc4kts Aroemfs pLeoraintcidanenon tNism astmaioiidgn ratalh nEattsl e aLcptaipotienna orSsst umtdaoikesest a(sAwtrNaoynE gSjlo)y,b saa mlmfrooonmsgt
Freeylor those already working in the U.S. McClain et al. (2007) similarly fi nd that
© Ta African Americans were more concerned than whites about the economic
threat posed by immigrants based on a survey conducted in a southern city
with a new immigrant population.
Who’s Afraid of Immigration? 291
B. Partisanship
While there are clear diff erences in immigration attitudes based on race, the
evidence for partisan diff erences is mixed. Citrin et al. (1997) found that par-
tisanship is unrelated to preference for limiting immigration in the U.S. based
on 1992 and 1994 ANES data. Neiman, Johnson, and Bowler (2006) found
weak evidence of partisan diff erences in immigration attitudes in Califor-
nia. They conclude that partisan diff erences are often due to correlated fac-
s tors, such as race, and that the views of many Democrats and Independents
e
aci overlap with Republicans. Others have found stronger evidence of a partisan
cr
mo divide in immigration attitudes. Tolbert and Hero (1996) found a relation-
e
D ship between county-level Republican percentage and support for California’s
eral Proposition 187. More recently, a survey about the recent Arizona legislation
b
Li found that Republicans are more supportive of requiring people to produce
n in documents verifying legal status than Democrats, though majorities of both
nio parties approve of this measure (Pew 2010).
pi
O
c
bli
u
P HYPOTHESES
d
n
a
n
atio We hypothesize that the eff ectiveness of threatening appeals about immi-
gr gration varies by racial group. Given the diff erent dimensions of worry
mi
m expressed by Latinos in comparison to the other racial groups (Pew 2006),
3, I we expect that Latinos’ immigration policy attitudes would signifi cantly dif-
1
20 fer from the other groups. Latinos are more likely to hold pro-immigration
04, attitudes, worry about the conditions of immigrants, and view anti-immi-
n
a grant campaigns as racist. We expect that a traditional anti-immigration
J
d L., 621 advertisement that portrays immigration as a threat to the country will
Davi6211 nimotm riegsroantiaotne aadm wonilgl pLeartsiunaodse. wInh ictoens tarnadst ,A wfreic aexnp Aecmt etrhicaat ntsh teo tsrhadifitt itohneairl
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 afottc iutWusedese soh nian vt eha eno taphnprteoia-sitimtse f mapcirgeedrda bincytt idiominrmse ciftgoiorra nna.t sd tihff eemresnetl vtehs.r eWathenitiensg a nadd ,A wfrhiciachn
nsen, Raoken, IS Anommeirci,c acnuslt aurree ,m oorr ese lcikuerliyty t ot hvrieeawt st,h arenadt ss oo vwere iemxmpeigctr atthioant ainn taedrm fesa otfu ercinog-
Haob threats to immigrants themselves will not resonate with them. However,
y P.; cis, H while this type of threatening ad is scarce in the political debate over immi-
man, Garand Fran gtwhrieal lt aipodun st, ohit Lrreaastiosinensoa stce oi nnw caiet rmhn osth rteeh malitb. aeWrreae lf aedxmirpeielcicattiro ttnho.a mt tahniys Ltyaptien oosf , tahnrdea wteen einxgp eacdt
Freeylor Given the contrasting fi ndings in the literature regarding partisanship
© Ta and immigration attitudes, we are more speculative on this front. If there
are partisan diff erences, we expect that Republicans will be more recep-
tive to an ad that portrays immigrants as a threat to the country and that
292 Bethany Albertson and Shana Kushner Gadarian
Democrats will be more receptive to an ad that focuses on threats faced by
immigrants themselves.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In a previous study, we asked our respondents to summon their own anxi-
ety about immigration in an open-ended question and found that two dis-
es tinct types of worries emerged. The fi rst worry alluded to the economic
ci
cra and social impact of immigrants on the U.S. and echoed the majority of
o
m popular rhetoric about immigration. The second set of worries concerned
e
D exploitation and discrimination against immigrants themselves, a worry
al
er far less common in mainstream media discussions about immigration. To
b
Li evaluate whether the content of threatening messages mattered, we created
n
n i two separate ads that focused on either the fear of immigration message or
o
ni the exploitation message and randomly assigned subjects to watch one of
pi
O the ads or a control condition. After watching one of the ads or the control
c
bli condition, subjects answered a series of questions on immigration policy—
u
P whether immigrants should be eligible for a number of social services, how
d
an much the government should spend on border security, and general immi-
n
atio gration attitudes.
gr Subjects were randomly assigned to view one of three videos that var-
mi
m ied whether respondents received a neutral or threatening message about
3, I immigration. All three videos were fi fty-eight seconds long and featured a
1
20 series of statements about immigration on a black background with white
04, text. In the two treatment conditions, the videos were intended to increase
n
a respondents’ anxieties about either immigration’s eff ect on the economy
J
d L., 621 and crime (i.e., the Fear condition) or the exploitation of unauthorized
Davi6211 iemvomcaigtirvaen tns a(tiu.er.e, tohfe tEhxe pFloeiatra taionnd cEoxnpdliotiiotant)i.o An dcdoitnidointaiollnys, , toth ien ctrreeaastme tehnet
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 cvToihdneed oci towionantsrs o dfle escaiotgunnrdeeiddt i toaon d bvrriaidnmegoa i tmdicim din ignsrotartut ihmoanev nteot am ml usiscniodcr eion.r Tap hniceot nuctorhenrste;r aortele sncpoionnngdd iwteinaotyns.
nsen, Raoken, IS rtieoand ecveonksueds .defi nitions of immigration and native-born status with no emo-
Haob Our treatment conditions were designed to mimic interest group ads either
y P.; cis, H advocating pro-immigration (Exploitation condition) or anti-immigration
man, Garand Fran (voFinse uabaro ltsch oa ntnhddei t dcioroanum)n ptarotyisc ia tmniodun sisim.c Lmtoiik geerv aBonkrtaesd tfeehrae rm( 2as0be0lov5ue)ts, .t thTheeh eea ffdt hesc rtuesat itoleifnz ieimndg me avidgosrc aauttsiioevnde
Freeylor the same music and most of the same images while varying information
© Ta about immigration.
Table 11.1 highlights some of the diff erences between these conditions.
In the Fear condition, respondents read statements attributed to promi-
nent politicians and political commentators that portrayed immigrants as
Who’s Afraid of Immigration? 293
depressing American wages and increasing crime. In one portion of the ad,
respondents read a quote from Representative Steve King of Arizona that
claimed that unauthorized immigrants murdered twelve Americans a day
and killed another thirteen Americans daily in drunk driving accidents.
Subjects then saw an image of a totaled car and an American fl ag hung
upside down under a Mexican fl ag. In the Exploitation condition, respon-
dents read statements from politicians and the press that working condi-
tions for immigrants were often unsafe and that immigrants pay more in
es taxes than they take from the system. In the last section of the ad, respon-
ci
cra dents read a statement from a 2007 New York Times article that stated
o
m that immigrant children in detention centers were denied proper health and
e
D educational needs. Subjects then saw an image of a detention center with
al
er barbed wire and a child looking out from behind a wire fence.
b
Li To ensure that respondents experienced a more realistic experimental
n
n i environment, subjects completed the study online in their homes. The 440
o
ni subjects came from an online panel of respondents, and we oversampled
pi
O blacks and Latinos. The sample is composed of 145 self-identifi ed whites,
c
bli 148 African Americans, and 147 Latino respondents. Most surveys and
u
P experiments explore the immigration attitudes of one racial group at a time
d
an (Brader, Valentino, and Suhay 2008; Nteta 2006; Pew Hispanic Center
n
atio 2007), so this experiment provides a way to evaluate the eff ect of immi-
gr gration messages on a broader portion of the public. Forty-two percent of
mi
m respondents hold a college degree or higher, 48 percent are female, and the
3, I average age is forty-three years old. Among whites, 37 percent identifi ed
1
20 as Democrats and 37 percent identifi ed as Republicans. Among African
4,
0
n
a
J
d L., 621 Table 11.1 Experimental Design
Davi6211 Ad content Images/music
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 Ntroonlt hcorenadtietnioinng ad: Con- I“ndTfeohfi renm Ueas. tSiim.o cnme noigsnrulayst ibounr eaasu None
nsen, Raoken, IS Threatening ad: Exploita- N. e.g .a”tive—immigrant Images depicting work-
ab
Ho tion condition rights ers, bad working condi-
man, Gary P.; and Francis, H “gieTnlrdhcaleenurrtldesy ia.an”r gye et2ha3re 0 isn,i0c d0ke0 at enimndt mioin- Ttdhieortneaasint, eeinmdi,nm cgih gmirladunrseticsn ..being
Freeylor Threatening ad: Fear of Negative—costs of immi- Images depicting crime,
© Ta immigrants condition gration drugs, protests, Mexican
“Illegal immigrants make fl ags hanging with Ameri-
up 30 percent of the fed- can fl ags.
eral prison population.” Threatening music.
294 Bethany Albertson and Shana Kushner Gadarian
Americans, 68 percent identifi ed as Democrats while only 4 percent iden-
tifi ed as Republican; among Latinos, 49 percent identifi ed as Democrats
and 15 percent identifi ed as Republicans. Although the sample cannot be
described as representative, we believe that it is a step forward in tracing
the infl uence of fear appeals on immigration attitudes.
RESULTS: POLICY ATTITUDES BY RACE
s
e
ci
cra There are signifi cant diff erences in immigration policy attitudes between
o
m whites, blacks, and Latinos. As in the general public, Latinos in our experi-
e
D ment hold the most pro-immigration and pro-immigrant attitudes with
al
er whites and African Americans signifi cantly less supportive of services for
b
Li immigrants and more supportive of criminalizing unauthorized immi-
n
n i grants. Table 11.2 presents immigration attitudes divided by racial group.
o
ni The table shows the percent of respondents who said that unauthorized
pi
O immigrants should defi nitely be eligible for a variety of state services. In the
c
bli fi rst set of measures, subjects were asked whether they thought that unau-
u
P thorized immigrants should be eligible for a variety of services and were
d
an off ered fi ve response options: defi nitely not eligible, probably not eligible,
n
atio unsure, probably eligible, and defi nitely eligible. Respondents evaluated
gr whether unauthorized immigrants should be able to access basic services
mi
m such as elementary education and emergency room treatment as well as
3, I more controversial services such as in-state tuition at universities, drivers’
1
20 licenses, and welfare benefi ts such as food stamps.
04, Consistent with expectations, Latinos are signifi cantly more supportive
n
a of providing services to immigrants than are whites and African Ameri-
J
d L., 621 cans. Among all groups there is a distinct break in support for humanitar-
Davi6211 iloanw epro lsiucpiepso lrikt ef oerm eenrgtietnlecmy ehneta lpthocliacriees a snudc hed ausc aftoioond csotammppasr etdh awt itihn dmicuacthe
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 measnopdre eca icaoclfel ysas sn tu opo ptbholierg tEaivtRieo: on4f 9 op fpr oetvrhciede nisntt gao thfe uLtmoat aitnnhoiets a irsnaiadidniv tsidheuravta iltc hecesi tscizuhecinlhd. raeLsn ae todinuf ocimas tmiaorine-
nsen, Raoken, IS g“draenfi tnsi tsehlyo uelldig idbelfie ”n iftoelry E bRe seelrigviibclees .f oInr cscohnotroal swt, h2i1le p5e3rc penetr coefn tw ahnitsews earnedd
Haob 30 percent of blacks defi nitely favor elementary education for unauthorized
y P.; cis, H immigrants. Larger percentages of whites (27 percent) and blacks (38 per-
man, Garand Fran nceonnItnp) owcloiotniuctlirdza esddte, sfi fenarrivt iecfleeyw oaenlrl otrhwees EplioRsnt .dacencetss s atnos wimermedig rtahnatts ,u tnhaeu tmhoosrtiz beda siicm amnid-
Freeylor grants should defi nitely have access to in-state tuition, food stamps, and driv-
© Ta ers’ licenses. Even among Latinos, only about one-fi fth of Latinos answered
that immigrants should defi nitely be eligible for in-state tuition and only 13
percent answered “defi nitely eligible” for food stamps. Small minorities of
Who’s Afraid of Immigration? 295
Table 11.2 Immigration Policy Attitudes
Border Overall
Eligibility for social services (% defi nitely eligible) security policy
Element In-State Driver’s Food (% spend
education ER tuition licenses stamps more) (% felons)
White 20.69 26.90 6.21 8.28 4.83 69.66 29.66
s
cie Black 30.41 37.84 8.11 10.81 12.84 72.97 18.92
a
ocr Latino 48.98 53.74 20.41 26.53 12.93 51.70 10.88
m
De Χ2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
eral N 440 440 440 440 440 440 440
b
Li
n
n i whites and blacks supported eligibility for food stamps and in-state tuition.
o
ni Eligibility for drivers’ licenses, an issue that garnered attention during the
pi
O 2008 election, was supported by few respondents. While 27 percent of
c
bli Latinos want unauthorized immigrants to defi nitely be eligible for drivers’
u
P licenses, 31 percent answered that this group should defi nitely not be eligible.
d
an This compares to 47 percent of African Americans and 59 percent of whites
n
atio who believe that unauthorized immigrants should defi nitely not be able to
gr get drivers’ licenses. Across these issues it is apparent that Latinos support a
mi
m broader array of services for unauthorized immigrants than whites or blacks,
3, I but that support is highest for basic health and education needs.
1
20 Subjects also answered two questions on broader immigration policy—
04, how much the government should spend on border security and how the
n
a government should pursue immigration policy. For the border security
J
d L., 621 question, respondents answered whether they thought that the government
Davi6211 stoh oduelcdr eianscer euansea,u tdheocrriezaesde ,i morm migaraintitoanin. Ssuppenpdoirnt gf oorn m tohree bboorrddeerr isne courrditeyr
ndall; Leal, BN: 978113 scYpleoetsn,e dalyiltn thgioe wdu gabhso hradi gmehra sajeomcruoitrnyigt oy af s lapl lgelnr todhuirnpegse , i gswr tohoui cbphrs o wsauedp ebpre olhiroetvmeed e ilmsa dnoudree s iebnco uprrdaierttry tsiosp sehunoedws-.
nsen, Raoken, IS ifnogr ,b Loartdienro ss ewcuerreit yst. iWll sei ganlsiofi caasnkteldy lseusbs jleicktesl ya tqou seusptipoonr ta ibnocurte awsihnagt fguonvdeirnng-
Haob ment policy should be toward unauthorized immigrants currently residing
y P.; cis, H in the U.S. and off ered four response options that refl ect the contemporary
man, Garand Fran d eb(1a)t eM aabkoeu itl liemgmal iigmramtiiognr apnotlsi cfyel:ons and deport them.
Freeylor (2) Have a guest worker program that allows legal work for a limited
© Ta time.
(3) Provide a path to citizenship that includes paying back taxes.
(4) Grant amnesty.