Anti-immigrant Research Articles

National Identity and Welfare Nationalism: Migration, Citizenship, and Social Policy

The future course of the welfare state in the context of global capitalism’s expansion is a subject of intense academic debate, with significant scrutiny focused on its trajectory amid globalization. This discourse encompasses inquiries into the economic prerequisites for and ramifications of the welfare state, as well as its alignment with economic competitiveness and political legitimacy. Particularly prominent is the issue of political legitimacy, focusing on the welfare state’s ability to foster social cohesion and ensure democratic governance, given challenges posed by immigration, anti-immigration sentiments, and evolving social risks. These challenges have highlighted a dichotomy within Western European societies, emphasizing distinctions between natives and immigrants based on their positioning within the labor market. Despite migrants’ potential contributions, their reception and integration into destination countries’ social fabric are often hindered by welfare nationalism and concerns regarding declining welfare standards. This nationalism manifests in welfare exclusionism and chauvinism, fueling calls to restrict migrant benefits. Conversely, welfare state ideologies rooted in egalitarian principles serve as a counterbalance to exclusionary demands, shaping debates on migrants’ entitlement to welfare benefits. Against this backdrop, this study aims to elucidate the intricate interplay between pragmatic and nationalist/exclusionary perspectives within the discourse of welfare nationalism. It seeks to achieve this by examining the nexus between welfare rights, national identity formation, the welfare state crisis, and migrants’ positioning within the labor market. Through enriching this debate, the study endeavors to contribute to a deeper understanding of the future trajectory of welfare states characterized by significant migrant populations.

Immigration, legal status and fiscal impact

We develop a general equilibrium model with search frictions in the labor market, wage bargaining and a welfare state, to study the impact of immigrants on the fiscal balance and welfare of natives in the host country. We distinguish immigrants by legal status and account for both their direct fiscal effects, through their tax contributions and transfer receipts, and their indirect fiscal and welfare effects, through their labor-market impact. We calibrate the model to the U.S. economy and find that legal immigrants reduce the tax burden on natives and increase natives' welfare, mainly because their tax contributions greatly exceed the transfers they receive. On the other hand, illegal immigrants' positive welfare impact stems mainly from their positive effect on job creation, which increases income to natives and in turn consumption. A legalization program leads to a fiscal gain, increases natives' welfare and is more beneficial to natives than a purely restrictive immigration policy that reduces the illegal immigrant population.

Intergroup evaluative bias in facial representations of immigrants and citizens in the United States.

We used a reverse-correlation image-classification paradigm to visualize facial representations of immigrants and citizens in the United States. Visualizations of immigrants' faces were judged by independent raters as less trustworthy and less competent and were more likely to be categorized as a non-White race/ethnicity than were visualizations of citizens' faces. Additionally, image generators' personal characteristics (e.g., implicit and explicit evaluations of immigrants, nativity status) did not reliably track with independent judges' ratings of image generators' representations of immigrants. These findings suggest that anti-immigrant sentiment and racial/ethnic assumptions characterize facial representations of immigrants in the United States, even among people who harbor positivity toward immigrants.

Mexican-origin women’s individual and collective strategies to access and share health-promoting resources in the context of exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies

BackgroundA growing literature has documented the social, economic, and health impacts of exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies in the early 21st century for Latiné communities in the US, pointing to immigration and immigrant policies as forms of structural racism that affect individual, family, and community health and well-being. Furthermore, the past decade has seen an increase in bi-partisan exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies. Immigration enforcement has been a major topic during the 2024 Presidential election cycle, portending an augmentation of exclusionary policies towards immigrants. Within this context, scholars have called for research that highlights the ways in which Latiné communities navigate exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies, and implications for health. This study examines ways in which Mexican-origin women in a midwestern northern border community navigate restrictive immigration and immigrant policies to access health-promoting resources and care for their well-being.MethodsWe conducted a grounded theory analysis drawing on interviews with 48 Mexican-origin women in Detroit, Michigan, who identified as being in the first, 1.5, or second immigrant generation. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on participants’ preferences, and were conducted at community-based organizations or other locations convenient to participants in 2013–2014.ResultsWomen reported encountering an interconnected web of institutional processes that used racializing markers to infer legal status and eligibility to access health-promoting resources. Our findings highlight women’s use of both individual and collective action to navigate exclusionary policies and processes, working to: (1) maintain access to health-promoting resources; (2) limit labeling and stigmatization; and (3) mitigate adverse impacts of immigrant policing on health and well-being. The strategies women engaged were shaped by both the immigration processes and structures they confronted, and the resources to which they had access to within their social network.ConclusionsOur findings suggest a complex interplay of immigration-related policies and processes, social networks, and health-relevant resources. They highlight the importance of inclusive policies to promote health for immigrant communities. These findings illuminate women’s agency in the context of structural violence facing immigrant women and are particularly salient in the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric and exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies.

Persistence of misinformation and hate speech over the years: The Manchester Arena bombing

In the aftermath of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, the ensuing debate in the press and on social media underscored terrorism's potential to intensify divisions. This study delves into the social media and press dynamics of rumors following the attack, and into the subsequent discourse on migration policies. We collected a dataset consisting of 3184 press articles and 89,148 tweets about the Manchester Arena bombing. This research aims to identify prevalent rumors, explore the short- and long-term impacts on user engagement, analyze the sentiment in tweets related to each rumor, and examine perceptions of terrorism threats and migration policies among both the press and X (previously Twitter) users. The study found that X acted as an echo chamber for misinformation, amplifying specific rumors related to the attack, while the press exhibited fact-checking practices and provided nuanced perspectives. Notably, one rumor suggesting the attacker was a refugee gained traction over the years, reflecting an increase in anti-immigrant sentiments. Emotional responses on X ranged from neutral to heightened distress and anger, highlighting the significant impact of social media narratives on public sentiment. The research underscores the polarization of views on social media, influenced by the condensed format of tweets and the rapid production cycle, with X users expressing predominantly very negative attitudes toward immigration. This study emphasizes the critical role of the media in dispelling misinformation and fostering nuanced public understanding in complex sociopolitical contexts.

Title 42 and the Impact on Asylum Seekers: Exploring the Effects of its Termination and its Changes on the US Immigration System

The repeal of Title 42, an emergency immigration restriction, represents a significant policy shift in how the United States treats migrants who arrive at the southern border, particularly those seeking asylum. For over three years, U.S. border officers used Title 42 to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants to Mexico or their home countries, claiming that their presence could contribute to the spread of the coronavirus. While Title 42 is allegedly a public health policy, it has been utilized to regulate and prevent unauthorized border crossings. Democrats and campaigners have denounced title 42 because it prevents refugees from obtaining asylum, a legal right they normally have once they reach US territory. Republicans described it as an effective border control tool, requesting that Title 42 should be codified into law so that it may be utilized outside of the pandemic setting. The period of Title 42 ended, which created more obstacles than solutions for asylum seekers. As the US ends Title 42, the rules for asylum seeking are changing once again, the United States will revert to Title 8 under the new standards. The Title 8 Code outlines a strict asylum policy which makes it harder for immigrants to file claims and to seek asylum. Under this new regulation everyone coming from Latin-America, except for Mexico, has to face the harsh reality that the requirements of Title 8 make most of them ineligible for asylum. How does the repealing of Title 42 affect the US immigration system and how will it influence the 2024 elections as the termination was introduced at a critical time, when Biden is seeking a second term?

Procedure Matters: The Distinct Attitudinal Feedback Effects of Immigration Policy

AbstractNatives who dislike immigrants prefer restrictive immigration policies, but do those policies deepen or alleviate anti-immigrant attitudes? Existing theories have offered mixed predictions. Restrictions imposed on immigrants may harden intergroup boundaries and thus deepen hostilities. However, they may also soften attitudes by addressing the economic and identity concerns of natives. Using a conjoint experiment conducted in Hong Kong, I test the multidimensional effects of immigration policies on natives’ attitudes toward highly skilled immigrants. I find that restrictive measures consistently generate more positive attitudes. Strikingly, this effect cannot be fully accounted for by major theoretical explanations, including labor market competition, social identity, and welfare attitudes. Preexisting policy preferences do not condition the effect either. These findings point to the importance of attitudinal policy feedback beyond traditional accounts of immigration attitudes. In-depth qualitative interviews identify two novel causal mechanisms: moralizing and quality assurance effects.

Do dependents matter? Exploring multiple dimensions of attitudes toward immigration and immigrants

ABSTRACT Most extant research on natives’ attitudes toward immigration and immigrants (ATII) pays scant attention to the explanandum: predictors are widely assumed to apply across attitudinal facets regardless of how the dependent was defined and operationalized. This paper employs a sequence of factor and regression analyses to explore the dimensional structure of ATII in Spain, based on survey data collected in 2020 (N = 2,344). The most parsimonious factor solution for our dataset’s broad basket of attitude gauges distinguishes impact assessments and migration policy preferences (‘attitudes toward immigration’) neatly from sentiment toward various immigrant groups (‘attitudes toward immigrants’); the ensuing latent variables correlate with differentiated sets of predictors. Predictors based on extant theorizing prove highly pertinent for immigration attitudes, but contribute less to explaining anti-immigrant sentiment. In a more fine-grained factor solution, conceptually coherent ramifications emerge within both of these main dimensions; again, the more nuanced attitude components are associated with differentiated predictor profiles. These findings caution against the widely held notion that any sentiment or appraisal regarding international migration and migrants expresses a general attitude in this realm, instead encouraging researchers to acknowledge the complexity of ATII and pursue facet-specific explanations.

Structural gendered racism as conceptualized by immigrant women in the United States

RationaleImmigrants represent a rapidly growing proportion of the population, yet the many ways in which structural inequities, including racism, xenophobia, and sexism, influence their health remains largely understudied. Perspectives from immigrant women can highlight intersectional dimensions of structural gendered racism and the ways in which racial and gender-based systems of structural oppression interact. ObjectiveThis study aims to show the multilevel manifestations of structural gendered racism in the health experiences of immigrant women living in New York City. MethodSemi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted in 2020 and 2021 with 44 cisgender immigrant women from different national origins in New York City to explore how immigrant women experienced structural gendered racism and its pathways to their health. Interviews were thematically analyzed using a constant comparative approach. ResultsParticipants expressed intersectional dimensions of structural gendered racism and the anti-immigrant climate through restrictive immigration policy and issues related to citizenship status, disproportionate immigration enforcement and criminalization, economic exploitation, and gendered interpersonal racism experienced across a range of systems and contexts. Participants weighed their concerns for safety and facing racism as part of their life course and health decisions for themselves and their families. ConclusionsThe perspectives and experiences of immigrant women are key to identifying multilevel solutions for the burdens of structural gendered racism, particularly among individuals and communities of non-U.S. national origin. Understanding how racism, sexism, xenophobia, and intersecting systems of oppression impact immigrant women is critical for advancing health equity.

The transnationalist nationalists: the joint curriculum of anti-immigration actors in Norway

ABSTRACT This article delves into the transnational ideational influences that shape the discourse and actions of actors who mobilize against migration to Norway. While anti-immigrant sentiments often revolve around the preservation of the nation-state, their inspirations frequently transcend national borders. Through interviews with a diverse array of Norwegian actors who mobilize against migration, from left-wing to right-wing, parliamentary to extra-parliamentary, this study uncovers the multifaceted web of transnational influences. Two distinct streams emerge: one drawn from exemplary entities, such as policies and politicians in other countries, and the other from ‘enlightening’ sources, like alternative media and ‘intellectual entrepreneurs. These influences, while interconnected, cast different shades upon the anti-immigration worldview, some emanating from ‘alternative’ sources, while others from the mainstream. This research not only deepens our understanding of non-relational ideational diffusion but also illuminates the mainstreaming of nationalist ideologies. The article underscores the significance of critical events and organic intellectuals in shaping the cultural understanding of unconnected actors. By encompassing a broad spectrum of anti-immigration actors, this study uncovers common threads that unite seemingly disparate actors, offering insights into the shared dynamics of transnationalism.

Henry Pratt Fairchild on the Restriction of Immigration

Henry Pratt Fairchild on the Restriction of Immigration

Frustration and fidelity: how public interest lawyers navigate procedure in the direct representation of asylum seekers

AbstractPublic interest lawyers seek to empower clients through collaborative approaches to direct representation that redistribute legal knowledge and affirm clients’ agency; however, the legal settings in which attorneys operate shape their capacity to subvert dynamics they consider oppressive. Based on twenty months of ethnographic fieldwork at a legal nonprofit serving asylum seekers in Los Angeles, this study explores how the broader environment of a restrictive immigration system transforms the aspirations, possibilities, and strategies of public interest lawyering. Drawing from sociolegal literature on cause lawyers, access to justice, and the U.S. immigration system, the article argues that the politicization of the U.S. immigration bureaucracy destabilizes foundational legal norms, hindering the agenda of public interest attorneys. Procedural formalism constitutes one of the only resources at attorneys’ disposal, yet here it often impedes lawyers’ ability to disrupt perceived power hierarchies. Specifically, the prevalence of complex legal procedures that obstruct access to asylum reconfigures opportunities to uplift clients. These findings illuminate how hostile legal settings strain lawyers. They also contribute to timely debates around how attorneys protect access to justice and advance meaningful social transformation.

Not everyone suffers equally: The effect of electoral overlap on mainstream party responses to radical right parties

The rise of radical right parties in Europe has led to a number of strategic responses from mainstream parties (MSPs). However, not all MSPs are equally affected by the rise of challenger parties. This idea has been neglected in much of the quantitative work in the field. This paper extends this argument and investigates electoral overlap in a cross-country study of multiparty systems. Using Propensity to Vote (PTV) data to measure the electoral overlap between MSPs and radical right parties in eight Western European countries, I estimate the effect of right-wing threat on the positions of MSPs on immigration. A higher threat of losing voters to the radical right is associated with a move towards more restrictive immigration policies; on the other hand, a party’s chance to win voters back from the radical right has no significant impact on its positions.

Internationalization of Higher Education and Emerging National Rationales: Comparative Analysis of the Global North and South

AbstractThis paper provides a comparative analysis of national rationales to higher education internationalization in the global north and south countries using content analysis. The results reveal that the socio-economic rationales are dominant across most of the 27 sampled countries. However, they manifest differently across the global north and global south as countries interpret the benefits and effects of internationalization in line with their national priorities. These variations are being shaped by an increasingly complex, competitive, and multipolar higher education internationalization landscape with new global south actors acquiring agency despite the deepening global inequalities. As a result, political rationales are becoming an important driver to internationalization. The current geopolitical environment associated with global conflicts, health pandemics, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization sentiments is also adding more uncertainty and complexity. Due to increased concerns about this multipolar and self-centred internationalization, a few countries are starting to promote inclusive approaches to internationalization.

Efficiency neglect: Why people are pessimistic about the effects of increasing population.

Efficiency neglect: Why people are pessimistic about the effects of increasing population.

“Labor Freezing”

During the Second World War, the recruitment of Basque immigrants became a pressing issue among wool growers all over the American West. The restrictive immigration measures the U.S. Congress put in place during the mid-1920s had significantly reduced the amount of Basque labor available for sheep grazing. Since the early twentieth century, wool growers had been claiming that Basques possessed exceptional qualities lacking in other groups, particularly Mexicans. They touted Basques as “skilled” workers and emphasized their alleged racial and cultural talents for sheep grazing as justification to grant them permanent “skilled” labor immigrant permits. In refusing to employ Mexican workers, most western wool growers perpetuated the idea that Basques were the preferred racial group to labor in the sheep industry. This article analyzes the relationship between the Basque sheepherder myth and sheepherder shortages in WWII. It analyzes how wool growers justified the necessity of admitting Basque immigrants, an attitude which in turn reinforced the notions of Mexican otherness and backwardness in the western sheep industry. The “Othering” and exclusion of Mexican sheepherders contributed further to more positive attitudes toward Basque immigrants, all of which must be considered in the racial context of whiteness in America.

Supporting Migrant Children in Pediatric Settings: Lessons Learned from the US Migrant Humanitarian Crisis Response.

This article examines the influx of migrants to the United States and highlights current global and local immigration trends. The authors focus on migrant children-specifically the effect of migration trauma in the context of humanitarian responses to the intentional movement of migrants to Democrat-led cities across the US to humanize the compounded effects of migration trauma, restrictive immigration policies, and the current resettlement landscape for migrants. The authors are directly involved with supporting migrant arrivals who have relocated to Chicago from the southern border, and apply field knowledge to articulate current barriers to accessing health care and best practices within pediatric settings supporting migrant arrivals. Clinical and practice implications for medical providers in pediatric settings are included. The article also highlights the role of interdisciplinary collaboration in providing health care to asylum-seeking migrants and implications for transdisciplinary workforce development in this area. [Pediatr Ann. 2024;53(5):e171-e177.].

Anxious Activists? Examining Immigration Policy Threat, Political Engagement, and Anxiety among College Students with Different Self/Parental Immigration Statuses.

Restrictive immigration policies harm the mental health of undocumented immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members. As a sociopolitical stressor, threat to family due to immigration policy can heighten anxiety, yet it is unclear whether political engagement helps immigrant-origin students to cope. We used a cross-sectional survey of college students from immigrant families (N = 2,511) to investigate whether anxiety symptomatology was associated with perceived threat to family and if political engagement moderated this relationship. We stratified analyses by self/parental immigration statuses-undocumented students, U.S. citizens with undocumented parents, and U.S. citizens with lawfully present parents-to examine family members' legal vulnerability. Family threat was significantly associated with anxiety; higher levels of political engagement reduced the strength of this relationship. However, this moderation effect was significant only for U.S. citizens with lawfully present parents. These findings emphasize the importance of the family immigration context in shaping individuals' mental health outcomes.

The legacy of immigration policies and employment exclusion: Assessing the relationship between employment exclusions and immigrant health

Restrictive federal and state immigration policies create conditions of employment exclusion that may negatively influence the health of immigrants. In particular, these policy effects are reflected in labor market and workplace experiences that determine the types of work and employment opportunities that immigrants are able to access and pursue. This study examines the relationship between both cumulative and individual measures of employment exclusion and self-rated health and psychological distress among Asian and Latino immigrants in California, and whether this relationship is modified by legal status. We used data from the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) study (n = 2010). We used both multivariable logistic regression and linear regression models for our analyses. For cumulative models, labor market exclusion was associated with poor health (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.46). Workplace exclusion was also associated with poor self-rated health (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.82) and increased psychological distress (β = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.07). For individual measures of employment exclusion, settling for a job – a labor market exclusion – and working in a dangerous job and experiencing wage theft – workplace exclusions – were associated with poor health and increased psychological distress. There was no evidence that the association between employment exclusions and health varied by legal status. These findings demonstrate that the combined effect of employment exclusions is detrimental to immigrant health. To improve population health, public health researchers should continue to interrogate the policy conditions at the federal, state, and local level that exclude immigrants from employment opportunities and workplace protections.

Loss of Peers and Individual Worker Performance: Evidence From H-1B Visa Denials

We study how restrictive immigration policies that result in the unexpected loss of coworkers affect the performance of skilled migrants employed in organizations. Specifically, we examine the impact of the loss of team members on their coworkers’ performance in response to the unexpectedly increased denials of extensions of H-1B work visas in the United States beginning in 2017. Losing a team member generally has a positive, albeit economically insignificant, effect on the performance of workers left behind. However, we find that individuals who lost peers of the same ethnic background experience a substantial decrease in their performance. To confirm that our results are not plagued by the presence of unobservable team or individual features that might impact visa denial decisions, we build an instrumental variable that exploits the fixed duration of the H-1B visa. Heterogeneity analyses suggest that our result is driven by workers in small teams, teams working on atypical tasks, and ethnically homogeneous teams. These analyses hint at the fact that ethnic ties may boost individual performance through preferential channels of knowledge and information spillovers. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17319 .