Contentious immigration politics in a multijurisdictional field: A case study of Orange County, California

Abstract

How do multijurisdictional political fields impact the strategies of pro- and anti-immigrant advocates? The geographical literature on immigration demonstrates that immigration policy in the United States has become decentralized, federalized, and fragmented. However, scholars studying immigration politics and activism continue to conceptualize mobilizations as unfolding within jurisdictional containers. This paper examines how advocates on both sides of the issue develop strategies in response to multiple entangled jurisdictions. It does so through a case study of contentious immigration politics in Orange County, California during the 2010s. The paper maintains that a multijurisdictional field distributes political opportunities unevenly to opposing advocates. How advocates respond to these opportunities depends on the distribution of resources to each side across this complex political space. The combination of political opportunities and resources determine the strategies that pro- and anti-immigrant advocates pursue. The paper derives its data from regional newspapers and employs a “claims analysis” to analyze waves of mobilization, actors, attitudes, locations, and strategies (Koopmans & Paul, 1999). The paper shows that advocates on both sides were not contained within single jurisdictional walls. Instead, they developed complex geographical strategies that sought to exploit opportunities in friendly jurisdictions to combat threats from unfriendly jurisdictions.