Anti-immigrant Research Articles

Securitization of International Migration in the Context of Economic and Societal Security: An Example of the Hungarian Fidesz and Jobbik Parties

The phenomenon of international migration has become one of the most complex issues within the expanding and deepening security field since the conclusion of the Cold War. By the end of the 1990s, far-right parties had securitized international migration, which had previously been encouraged by many European countries to meet their workforce needs, posing a threat to the security of both the international system and developed and developing countries. Particularly after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, immigration and anti-immigrant sentiments and actions were concentrated in the Western world in general, and Europe in particular, reaching a pinnacle during the Arab Spring. Far-right parties have risen in response to migration and anti-immigration discourses, securitizing international migration by claiming that immigrants disrupt European society’s homogeneity and increase integration problems, unemployment, and crime rates. This study examines the securitization of international migration on a socioeconomic and political level within the framework of far-right parties in Europe using the example of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz and opposition Jobbik parties. The conclusions reached show that international migration will be securitized in both Eastern and Western European countries where the far-right is on the rise.

Immigrants Run the Restaurants

This article tracks and analyzes the steady drift of immigrants of color out of fields and into California’s swelling restaurants, especially its fast food, Chinese, and Mexican varieties, as they sought employment, community, and cultural purpose from the 1940s to the 1980s. It argues that their entry reshaped the rhythms and reputation of restaurant service as well as the prevailing habits and expectations of dining out. Their labor assured and normalized eating out, eating culturally diverse foods, and eating in public settings both formal and casual. Yet, the very visibility and necessity of immigrant rather than white labor in restaurants also complicated, broadened, and heightened the era’s debates about immigration restrictions, which had traditionally focused upon agriculture and the needs of growers. Operation Wetback in 1954 and a series of immigration bills proposed and deliberated through the 1970s and early 1980s increasingly centered the restaurant industry and its more urban and dispersed locations, its more nocturnal rhythms, and its greater accessibility to and appreciation by the public. Acknowledging these unique features of restaurants and their dependence upon migrants, the culminating Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) protected the migrant workforce in restaurants, without correcting their vulnerability, and thus maintained Californians’ routines of diverse dining out.

Authoritarianism, Trust in Media, and Tolerance Among the Youth

Abstract: Young people’s authoritarianism is usually associated with lower tolerance toward immigrants. This study tests several alternative pathways through which authoritarianism translates into intolerance. Besides perceived threat from immigration and political alienation, trust in alternative media, which often express anti-immigration sentiments, are considered as potential mediators. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze two-wave longitudinal questionnaire data from Czech adolescents and young adults (aged 15–25; N = 1,346). The results showed that authoritarianism longitudinally predicted perceived threat, which in turn mediated the negative effect of authoritarianism on tolerance. Authoritarianism also predicted higher trust in alternative media, but alternative media trust did not translate into young people’s tolerance. Despite their cross-sectional correlations, no longitudinal effects of authoritarianism on political alienation were found.

Protecting Our (White) Daughters: U.S. Immigration and Benevolent Sexism

AbstractTo advocate for restrictive immigration policies, conservative U.S. politicians have advanced a narrative that Latino immigrants commit violent crimes against White women. This framing of immigrant threat builds on a long history of similar anti-Black discourse and activates racialized ideas about protecting femininity. I demonstrate how the identities of purported victims of immigrant crime connect attitudes about immigration with benevolent sexism—a superficially positive, protective attitude toward particular types of women. An original survey experiment shows that benevolent sexism is activated when victims of immigrant crime are White women. Using nationally representative survey data, I show that the benevolent face of sexism has a notable impact on the immigration attitudes of White Americans, particularly when it comes to the protectionist policy of policing of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on Latinx mixed-status immigrant families in a restrictive immigration policy climate in the Southeast

Immigration-related policies rooted in structural racism negatively affect the wellbeing of Latinx immigrant families with undocumented family members, and these harms may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. To explore these intersecting challenges and identify opportunities for intervention, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews with frontline workers serving Latinx immigrants during the pandemic. Through these interviews, we sought to understand frontline workers' perceptions of the role of immigrant-related policies on the psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mixed-status Latinx immigrant families in Georgia. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, with Spanish-language interviews translated to English. Transcripts were double-coded and codes were analyzed following a grounded-theory informed analysis from which we identified three themes: 1) “Forgotten from the system”: Impacts of existing exclusionary policies and structural barriers on undocumented immigrants were magnified during the pandemic, 2) “Continual Stress”: The compounding psychosocial impacts of the policy environment and COVID-19, and 3) Advocating for the rights and wellbeing of immigrant families in a shifting policy landscape. These themes reflected the multiple interlocking systems that exclude undocumented and mixed-status families from social services and healthcare, create fear and stress, and harm the wellbeing of families. They also reveal community assets to respond to emergent and long-term challenges faced by families, though gaps remain due to existent state and federal policies. Findings from frontline workers demonstrate the need to address inequitable interlocking systems with policy reform, including to housing, healthcare, and transportation to include undocumented immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Future research on inclusionary policy recommendations made by frontline workers to improve wellbeing of mixed-status families is needed.

Quarantine Island: Australia’s Health Policy and Its Construction of International Law

Abstract This article explores the development of Australia’s policy approach towards communicable disease, both domestically and internationally. Drawing on archival records, it considers the methods used by federal and state governments to manage disease in Australia over time, analysing the key beliefs and priorities held by successive governments, and how these reflect Australia’s particular character and history. Against these domestic concerns, the article interrogates Australia’s approach to global health governance, with a particular focus on the state’s contributions to the drafting of major international health instruments on communicable disease. This analysis reveals the idiosyncratic nature of Australia’s health policy and the resulting impact on Australia’s contributions to the international legal system. It shows that Australia’s approach has consistently relied on the creation and preservation of an impermeable national border. This policy reflects an institutionalised belief, held continually since the early colonial period, that disease must be fully eradicated, and that this is best effected through taking advantage of the country’s geographic isolation. Domestically, this conception of disease control results in the adoption of strict quarantine requirements, immigration restrictions and broad discretionary powers regarding the entry of people and goods, while in the international context, Australia supports norms that facilitate its reification of its border. Accordingly, the article contextualises Australia’s health policy across four time periods of global health governance: the first sanitary conferences of the 19th and early-20th centuries, the post-World War II creation of the World Health Organization, the International Health Regulations 2005 revision project, and those Regulations’ operation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article’s findings reveal the intrinsic connection between the unique domestic concerns of states and their approaches to international negotiations, which stymies the ability to generate effective cooperation globally. It clarifies this relationship and invites reflection on the resulting obstacles to international law’s progressive development.

The claim-right to exclude and the right to do wrong

ABSTRACT Most challenges to immigration restrictions have not shown that states lack a claim-right to exclude, or a moral right against outside interference to make membership decisions. And an important, unexamined aspect of the claim-right is that states have the right against interference to wrongfully exclude, or the right to do wrong when making admission decisions. A major implication of this right is that even political or economic measures to affect states’ immigration policies are off the table – significantly compromising the prospect of meaningfully addressing the world’s growing refugee crisis. In the form of a reductio argument, I provide reason to reject this position. Specifically, I try to demonstrate that, in the relevant cases, a plausible moral defense for the right to wrongfully exclude can only be given for states with objectionable character – protecting the very states whose immigration policies we should be most concerned with, which is surely morally counterintuitive.

Canada’s bid to attract technology talent

The Canadian government began implementing a Tech Talent Strategy in July 2023 that eases immigration restrictions to attract foreign entrepreneurs and skilled workers. The initiative, greeted with overwhelming demand on its launch, responds to a shortage of tech skills in the domestic workforce and targets H-1B visa holders in the United States.

Beyond the womb: a mosaic of organizational advocacy for reproductive justice

ABSTRACT Within the US, recent calls for greater work-family justice have not only forced organizations to re-conceptualize work, but to re-define the role of organizations themselves. This shift has been striking during times of socio-political change as demonstrated most recently by organizational responses to the reversal of Roe v. Wade, with many companies pledging funding for birthing people seeking abortions. While this type of support is valuable, the singular focus on abortion rights within the reproductive justice context minimizes the scope of its intersectional legacy. The purpose of this paper is to advocate for the organizational application of a comprehensive framework for reproductive justice (CFRJ) guided by intersectional Black Feminist epistemology. We will show that many US organizations have already engaged in reproductive justice by weaving together a mosaic of three socio-political moments (the pathway to marriage equality, restrictive immigration policies and COVID-19), that garnered organizational support and advocacy. These moments reflect the comprehensive nature of reproductive justice as conceived by the Black Feminists who originated the term. These ‘turning points’ demonstrate the organization’s capacity for leadership during times of crisis. The paper concludes with recommendations that explore potential pathways for moving forward in supporting work-family and reproductive justice within organizations.

Church and xenophobia: The tension between nationhood and God’s mission in South Africa

The perennial scourge of xenophobic violence in South Africa raises some questions about the nation’s hospitality to immigrants. Unexpectedly, Christians are also torn between loyalty to the prevailing anti-immigrant sentiments and the obligation to be hospitable to foreigners. This article, therefore, seeks to explore this tension, and the objective is achieved by surveying pertinent literature.Having traced the history of xenophobic violence from the dawn of South Africa’s independence in 1994 to the present day, the article discusses the involvement of Christians in xenophobic violence, which can be viewed as a paradox. Thus, the article thoroughly reflects on God’s mission to foreigners and how the Church, a God-ordained community, fulfils that mission, which began in the Old Testament, when God anointed Israel as the vehicle of redemption for the world. Unfortunately, Israel failed to accomplish the mission, which was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who ordained the Church as the new covenant community that would fulfil the aforesaid mission. This study reveals that all people, including foreign nationals, bear the image of God, who indiscriminately loves and cares for all of them. God’s legislation in Israel’s history and the New Testament Church attest to that. The article concludes by exposing the tension experienced by South African Christians, as well as proposing a thrust for Christians to participate in God’s mission by practising sacrificial love and hospitality to foreigners.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This is an interdisciplinary article that looks at theological and sociological issues of co-existence.

The Architects of Hate: Garrett Hardin and Cordelia S. May's Fight for Immigration Restriction and Eugenics in the Name of the Environment

Abstract Drawing on the personal correspondence exchanged between Garrett Hardin and Cordelia S. May, leading advocates of population control, environmentalism, and immigration restriction, from the beginning of their friendship in the 1970s to the end of their lives in the early 2000s, this essay explores the closely guarded inner workings and behind-the-scenes efforts they took to realize their hardline xenophobic, eugenicist, and racist vision for a sustained network fighting for a white supremacist, English-speaking country. Drawing on eighteenth-century Malthusian ideas and ideologies and influenced by leading proponents of eugenics like Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Vogt, and Frederick Osborn, the dozens of letters they wrote to each other across a thirty-year span indicate that they worked to achieve their goals by joining, infiltrating, and building exclusionary organizations such as Zero Population Growth, Sierra Club, and The Environmental Fund. Set in a richly textured historical context, Hardin's and May's missives indicate that they fretted not only about unsustainable expansion but also about the presence and growing number of low-quality, unintelligent, and diseased people from around the Global South.

Transit Experiences

Abstract Between the 1870s and 1914, millions of Eastern Europeans moved to the United States. Little is known about the actual journeys of Polish, Jewish, and other migrants. A closer look at the experiences of transmigrants reveals a sophisticated system that was managed by Germany's two largest steamship lines, the Hamburg-America Line and the Bremen-based North German Lloyd. In the early 1880s, the United States shifted to a more thorough screening of arriving migrants, refusing admission to a growing number of “undesirables.” In 1885, Germany's largest state, Prussia, implemented a restrictive immigration policy, much earlier than other states in and beyond Europe. The steamship lines convinced the Prussian state not to prevent migrants from Eastern Europe from crossing its territory. Before 1914, migrant aid associations also established a good accord with different state agencies in Europe and North America. They intervened on behalf of migrants who had been detained, often successfully. State officials embraced non-state actors because they solved protracted problems and relieved states of a financial burden. The article examines the origins of the privately handled transmigration system in Imperial Germany and raises the question whether it was beneficial for average migrants.

“May God have mercy on his black soul”: Consul General Olof Lamm’s Private Diplomatic Efforts to Save Jews from Nazi Persecution

Abstract This article examines the private diplomatic efforts of Olof Lamm. A Swedish Jewish ex-diplomat and businessman, he used his personal network to protest against Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany, and informally lobbied the United States to increase its immigration quotas. Shedding light on these informal back-channel diplomatic networks, the author provides examples of the attitudes and obstacles Lamm faced when dealing with individuals, and reveals how those he petitioned justified their defense of Nazi ideology and actions and their own restrictive immigration policies.

Ethnoracist exclusion and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe: A hybrid model analysis using the European Social Survey, 2002–2016

The literature on anti-immigrant sentiment analyzes generalized threat—rooted in a mix of cultural and economic anxieties—but relies on a theoretical foundation based on the study of race. This is puzzling since research on immigration attitudes has developed theoretical and empirical blind spots regarding the relevance of race-ethnicity. This study engages with race theories to show that racialization and symbolic racism constitute a primary axis along which a substantial subset of the European public views immigrants. Using five waves of the European Social Survey (2002–2016) and matched country-level data, the study finds that excluding immigrants based on race-ethnicity distinguishes a sizeable minority in most countries, and is also not isolated to any one region. Further, results provide evidence for the racialization of certain immigrant groups through greater associations between these groups’ presence and anti-immigrant sentiment. Strong and consistent reactions to the Muslim foreign-born population stand out. Finally, ethnoracist exclusionists are the primary agents of such racialization as they exhibit the strongest reactions to racialized groups, having the highest anti-immigrant sentiment. Findings are discussed within the context of assumptions underlying classical threat theories, the cultural, religious, and racialized aspects of anti-Muslim sentiment, and the global and local manifestations of race.

Perceived economic security, relative gratification, and xenophobic sentiment during the Trump administration

The bulk of prior research focuses on economic hard times as a source of material insecurity and relative deprivation in fueling negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. The present study shifts the focus to a novel concept: relative gratification. During the height of Trump administration, the American economy enjoyed unprecedented growth and stability. Yet, as our study shows, anti-immigrant sentiment became more pronounced among US citizens with greater perceived material security, i.e., those who felt more relatively “gratified.” What is the logic behind this seemingly paradoxical outcome? By drawing on insights from the social psychology literature, we propose and demonstrate that favorable macroeconomic conditions instilled in some people a sense of privileged entitlement and heightened national pride, both of which contributed to hostilities toward the foreign born. Our moderation analysis also indicates that controlling for a proxy for Trump approval, this relationship was stronger for Republican-leaning individuals as well as those who self-identify as being more politically conservative.

Immigration Clashes, Party Polarization, and Republican Radicalization: Tracking Shifts in State and National Party Platforms since 1980

Abstract Studies of U.S. politics increasingly aim to make sense of two key trends: party polarization and Republican Party radicalization. Surprisingly, however, party divergences on immigration have been largely overlooked. Drawing on state and national political party platforms since 1980, we document the rise of attention to immigration, the polarization of substantive party positions, and the sharp GOP turn toward restrictive measures. After pinpointing the timing and relative trajectories of national and state-level agenda shifts, we explore potential drivers and establish two sets of flashpoint events worth further study: highly visible and mostly deadlocked congressional battles over immigration grand bargains, and bottom-up reverberations from the widespread 2006 immigrant rights protests and post-2008 Tea Party organizing. We find that grassroots Tea Party efforts were intervening accelerators rather than original causes of the Republican embrace of tough immigration restrictions. The article concludes by stressing the chronological layering of successive party polarizations—from 1960s divergences around civil rights, through clashes about abortion and LGBTQ rights from the late 1970s to the 1990s, and followed by immigration polarization in the 2000s. This process of layering polarizations on top of one another may have supercharged recent GOP turns toward ethnonationalism and tolerance for threats of violence.

Two Islamophobias? Racism and religion as distinct but mutually supportive dimensions of anti-Muslim prejudice.

Debates about Islamophobia have been blighted by the question of whether the prejudice can be defined as a form of racism or as hostility to religion (or a combination of the two). This paper sheds light on this debate by presenting the findings of a new nationally representative survey, focused on the UK, that contrasts perceptions of Muslims not only with perceptions of other ethnic and religious minorities but also with perceptions of Islam as a religious tradition. We find that prejudice against Muslims is higher than for any other group examined other than Travellers. We also find contrasting demographic drivers of prejudice towards Muslims and towards Islam. Across most prejudice measures we analyse, intolerant views are generally significantly associated with being male, voting Conservative and being older, although not with Anglican identity. We find, however, that class effects vary depending on the question's focus. Anti-immigration sentiment - including support for a 'Muslim ban' - is significantly correlated with being working-class. However, prejudice towards Islam as a body of teachings (tested using a question measuring perceptions of religious literalism) is significantly correlated with being middle-class, as is negative sentiment towards Travellers. Using these findings, the paper makes an argument for supplementing recent scholarship on the associations between racism and Islamophobia with analyses focusing on misperceptions of belief.

Instrumentally Inclusive: The Political Psychology of Homonationalism

Can nativist attitudes condition support for LGBT+ rights? The sustained advance in pro-LGBT+ attitudes in the West often contrasts with the greening of anti-immigrant sentiment propagated by nativist supply-side actors. We argue that these parallel trends are causally connected, theorizing that exposure to sexually conservative ethnic out-groups can provoke an instrumental increase in LGBT+ inclusion, particularly among those hostile toward immigration. Leveraging experiments in Britain and Spain, we provide causal evidence that citizens strategically liberalize their levels of support for LGBT+ rights when opponents of these measures are from the ethnic out-group. In a context where sexuality-based liberalism is nationalized, increasing tolerance toward LGBT+ citizens is driven by a desire among nativist citizens to socially disidentify from those out-groups perceived as inimical to these nationalized norms. Our analyses provide a critical interpretation of positive trends in LGBT+ tolerance with instrumental liberalism masking lower rates of genuine shifts in LGBT+ inclusion.

Understanding Latinx Perceptions of and Responses to Neighborhood Change

Using a place attachment lens, this article evaluates Latinx perceptions of and responses to neighborhood change. Research questions guiding this study include: (a) How do perceptions of place and neighborhood change vary among Latinx communities? (b) How do Latinx community members frame neighborhood change (as beneficial or disruptive)? And (c) How do these perceptions and assessments of neighborhood change shape the protective actions that are taken? This case study, based in Santa Ana, California, includes participant observations (nearly 180 hours) and semistructured interviews (28) with Latinx residents embedded in neighborhood associations and community-based organizations, selected because of their work against or for urban development. Results indicate that perspectives and responses varied by homeownership, age, immigration generation, and organizational affiliation, demonstrating differences among Latinxs in Santa Ana. Shaping their various perspectives are lived experiences (including racial discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment) and both past and present perceptions of place.

Female genital mutilation/cutting as a ground for asylum in France

AbstractThis study examines how France's national asylum legislation has changed politically and ideologically from following a gender‐blind policy to recognizing gender‐based violence as a ground for asylum. Among European countries, France receives the largest number of female asylum seekers (FAS) from sub‐Saharan African (SSA) countries, where female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is practiced. Although France was one of the first countries to recognize FGM/C as a reason for granting asylum, it was reluctant to accept FAS as a “particular social group (PSG).” This article analyzes the increase in asylum claims based on FGM/C in the 2000s and examines the political discourses on changing asylum legislation up to the 2010s. Data from official reports of government organizations were examined to investigate the decisions on asylum applications involving FGM/C. France changed its policies in the 2000s to include gender equality in its republican identity due to ultra‐right party and social campaigns criticizing male members of minority groups for violence and discrimination against women. The then conservative government exploited these circumstances and enacted restrictive immigration laws that addressed FGM/C grievances partially; the succeeding socialist government recognized FGM/C as a ground for asylum. This study concludes by arguing that the 2011 European directive was a turning point for French asylum legislation to include gender‐sensitive interpretation of the grounds under the Convention on the Status of Refugees, in line with European policy. However, the status of SSA women and girls remains uncertain while they are subjected to medical examination and the application range of PSG could be reconsidered.