American Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy [1 ed.] 9781593326432, 9781593323868

Citation preview

The New Americans Recent Immigration and American Society

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Edited by Steven J. Gold and Rubén G. Rumbaut

A Series from LFB Scholarly

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Michael Sobczak

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC El Paso 2010

Copyright © 2010 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Sobczak, Michael, 1975American attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy / Michael Sobczak. p. cm. -- (The new Americans : recent immigration and American society) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59332-386-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. United States--Emigration and immigration--Government policy-Public opinion. 2. Immigrants--United States--Public opinion. 3. Public opinion--United States. I. Title. JV6483.S63 2010 325.73--dc22 2010014560

ISBN 978-1-59332-386-8 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES............................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1 Immigration and the American Response .............................................. 1 CHAPTER 2 Theoretical Framework: Social Structure, Group Threat, Racism, & Self-Interest........................................................................ 15 CHAPTER 3 Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research....................... 43 CHAPTER 4 Data and Methods ................................................................................ 53 CHAPTER 5 Assessing the Direct Effects of Social Structure on Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration in the United States ............................... 91

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 6 Assessing the Effects of Social Psychological Factors on Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration in the United States ...................................................................................... 125 CHAPTER 7 Assessing the Total Effects of Social Structure on Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration in the United States................ 147

v

CHAPTER 8 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 183 APPENDIX A Addressing Collinearity Issues........................................................... 199 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 203

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

INDEX............................................................................................... 221

vi

List of Tables Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, And Chronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Estimates ........................................... 61 Table 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results -- 2000 General Social Survey ....................................................................................... 65 Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Social Structural Level Variables .............................................................................................. 73 Table 4.4 Occupation by Race/Ethnicity for 100 Local Areas............. 80 Table 4.5 Results from One-Way ANOVA (Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy) ............................................................................. 87 Table 4.6 Results from One-Way ANOVA (Attitudes Toward Immigrants).......................................................................................... 87 Table 5.1 Dependent Variable Distribution ......................................... 92 Table 5.2 Multilevel Linear Models Predicting Support for Immigration Restrictions ..................................................................... 98 Table 5.3 Multilevel Linear Models Predicting Anti-Immigrant Attitudes............................................................................................. 109

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Table 6.1 Multilevel Linear Model Predicting Support for Immigration Restrictions ................................................................... 128 Table 6.2 Multilevel Linear Model Predicting Anti-Immigrant Attitudes............................................................................................. 136 Table 7.1 Multilevel Ordinal Logit and Binary Logit Model Predicting Perceived Threat............................................................... 150 vii

Table 7.2 Multilevel Linear Model Predicting Racism Beliefs and Attitudes ...................................................................................... 153

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Table 7.3 Multilevel Linear Model Predicting Racist Beliefs and Attitudes ...................................................................................... 159

viii

List of Figures

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.1 Theoretical Model............................................................... 44 Figure 4.1 Analytical Model (Using GSS 2000).................................. 58

ix

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

A number of special people provided the inspiration, assistance, and aid that have made this monograph possible. I would like to extend a collective “thank you” to all these people. I am particularly indebted to James R. Kluegel and Gray Swicegood for their invaluable insight, wisdom, and guidance. They have not only enabled this project to be a success, but my current and future achievements largely result from this special bond. I also wish to express sincere appreciation to Tim Liao, Gillian Stevens, Eileen Diaz McConnell, Roberto M. De Anda, MoonKie Jung, Charles Cappell, and Dawn Owens-Nicholson for their direction, advice, expertise, and suggestions. Lastly, I would like to thank friends and family for their patience, understanding, and support.

xi

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 1

Immigration and the American Response

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION In my study I focus on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Immigration has become a crucial national issue in the contemporary era due in large part to the sharp rise in numbers of immigrants entering the United States beginning around 1965, the shift in the national origins of immigrants, and wage stagnation and economic restructuring occurring as immigrants arrive (Bean and Stevens 2003; Goodwin-White 2009). In many ways, the recent American response to immigration can be characterized as negative. Media coverage has reinforced negative stereotypes of today’s immigrants (Santa Ana 1999; Martinez-Brawley and Gualda 2009) and a number of political organizations have placed responsibility for a range of social ills on immigrants and their descendants (Freeman 1997; Muller 1997; Pettigrew 1998; Freeman and Kessler 2008). Moreover, there has been strong populist support for anti-immigrant legislation (Lapinski et al. 1997; National Public Radio 2004; Carroll 2005; Gallup Organization 2007), including attempts to restrict immigration (Federation for American Immigration Reform 2009), limit public benefits for immigrants (e.g. 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), cut bilingual education programs, and make English the official language of the United States 1

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

(US English 2009). These social trends underpin my overarching research questions: (1) how does social structure impact Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration?; and (2) how do social structure and social psychological factors combine to inform upon Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration? While a sizeable body of research has examined the factors that account for Americans’ attitudes toward immigration, existing nationallevel studies have predominately focused on individual level dimensions such as social psychological and socio-demographic factors (Chandler and Tsai 2001; Citrin et al. 2001; Wilson 2001; Citrin and Sides, 2008). In contrast, very little work has assessed the impact of local structural conditions on shaping Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Moreover, national-level research examining the effects of local structural conditions on immigration attitudes have largely focused on just two dimensions of social structure: population (i.e. out-group size) or regional (e.g. controlling for region of residence) structure (see Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Citrin et al. 1997; Hood and Morris 1997; Alba et al. 2005; Haubert and Fussell 2006; Pantoja 2006; Griffin and McFarland 2007). Moreover, such approaches are applied in nature and do not ground contextual measures in a unifying theory making for a cumbersome interpretation of structural level results. Local structural conditions are a critical dynamic to examine because immigrants settle and impact different locales in different ways. For instance, the amount, type, and intensity of competition that occurs between Americans and immigrants widely vary across locales (Bean et al. 1999; Bean and Stevens 2003; Newman 2003). It is therefore reasonable to expect that attitudes on immigration will be impacted accordingly. Yet, previous researchers have implicitly assumed that attitudes on immigration are evenly distributed across the country, which is a shortcoming that has hindered us from better understanding the underlying sources of antiimmigrant attitudes. My research will address this lacuna with a framework that directly questions how local structural factors shape American public opinion. Using a model derived from Blau’s theory of social structure (Blau 1977), I construct measures for six dimensions of social structure, which include: regional, community, population, residential,

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Immigration and the American Response

3

economic, and occupational structures. My framework also incorporates theories of group threat, racism, and self-interest in order to control for psychological and socio-demographic dynamics that have been examined in prior research. Thus, my approach provides a foundation to understand how social structure directly shapes public opinion alone, and how social structural factors condition the impact of individual-level dynamics. The later aspect is particularly important because the gross effects at the individual level may be quite contingent upon local context. Since past research has predominately investigated the impact of individual level dynamics alone, current understanding of these influences may be biased or inaccurate. The significance of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy has multiple dimensions. First, hundreds of hate crimes are committed every year on the basis of national origin (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2009; American Psychological Association 2004). Knowledge of the strongest predictors of antiimmigrant dispositions could direct policies that would deter many such hostilities. Second, in contrast with previous immigration waves that had risen and then largely tapered off, immigration today has likely become a permanent structural feature of U.S. society (Massey 1995). The permanence of this social phenomenon means the issues around anti-immigration sentiment are not likely to disappear in the foreseeable future, making it critical that the problem be addressed now. Third, although individuals with negative attitudes toward immigrants may not act on their attitudes (e.g. by lashing out at immigrants), research shows that self-reported attitudes relate to behavior (Dovidio et al. 1997). Therefore, the prevalence of negative attitudes surrounding immigration may reflect the prevalence of behavior directed at immigrants as well. Lastly, immigration since 1965 has converted the U.S. from a largely biracial society (with the exception of certain regional areas) into a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society (Bean and Stevens 2003). For that reason, public perception of immigrants and immigration policy is reflective of Americans’ views on multiculturalism and diversity.

4

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

BLAU’S SOCIAL STUCTURE Structure is defined in very broad, abstract terms by many sociological theorists. Spencer (1882) and Durkheim (1933) compared society to a living organism which has tissue and organs that are interrelated and function together in order to sustain the life of the organism. As an organism has these parts that are interrelated and function together, so does society. The interrelated parts of society comprise what these sociological theorists consider structure. Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure draws from this broad definition. However, his theory of social structure departs by conceptualizing the component “parts” of social structure as groups or classes of people where the interrelationship among the “parts” are the social relations of people in different groups. Therefore, Blau’s social structure refers to “population distributions among social positions along various lines— positions that reflect and affect people’s role relations and social associations (Blau 1977: 3)”. Under this theory of social structure, population distributions of various social positions are the focus, while the substantive portion of social positions is not. For example, the significance of racial heterogeneity, not the significance of race is the subject of structural inquiry. Social structure impacts intergroup relations in important ways. Even if in-group members have no ingroup preferences, structural constraints can lead them to primarily interact with people in their own group and will likely shape their preferences as such in the long run. According to Blau, social structure consists of three forms of social differentiation. The first, heterogeneity, refers to people’s distribution among different groups with distinct boundaries, yet without an inherent rank order (e.g. a city’s racial diversity). The second, inequality, refers to a population’s unevenness in the distribution of resources or status (e.g. uneven distribution of wealth). The third, intersection, refers to the degree of correlation between “heterogeneity” and “inequality” (e.g. intersection between race and occupation). Following the three forms of social differentiation, measures of population, community, residential, and regional structure fit into what Blau terms “heterogeneity” while economic structure is a form of “inequality” and occupational structure acts as a form of “intersection”.

Immigration and the American Response

5

The focus of these structural level measures is on uncovering instances of increased intergroup association.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RESEARCH APPROACH Given the variety of theoretical positions confronted, the type of research design most conducive to my proposed study requires a large sample in order to produce valid and robust results. Furthermore, a nationally representative sample that accurately reflects the population of the United States and their sentiment concerning immigrants and immigration policy is essential. The research design that most completely fulfills these research objectives is a survey design. Here, I rely primarily on the 2000 General Social Survey (GSS) (Davis et al. 2003), a large cross-sectional nationally representative survey. The 2000 GSS includes an exceptional array of multiple questions that focus broadly on public opinion with regard to immigrants and current immigration policy, and includes a variety of items that reflect various dimensions of racism, group threat, and self-interest. Respondents in the survey are linked to one of a 100 different sampling areas (“local areas”) across the United States, a feature that is rarely available for attitudinal data. Using 2000 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2002, 2003), I have created measures of social structure for each “local area”. Due to the nationally representative nature of the survey, results will accurately reflect contemporary American views toward immigrants and immigration policy. Together, these features of the 2000 GSS provide an exceptional basis to examine public opinion on immigration and assess my theoretical framework. Sample sizes for the two dependent variables are N=975 (attitudes toward immigrants) and N=943 (attitudes toward immigration policy). Metropolitan Statistical Areas, clusters of non-metro counties, and pairs of counties make up what is termed here as “local”. Roughly two-thirds of these local areas are Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Multilevel modeling is employed to analyze the hierarchical nature of the data structure at hand. The advantage of the multilevel analytical approach is that it takes into account and adjusts for situations where data is grouped into natural or imposed clusters with observations in the same cluster tending to be more alike than observations in different

6

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

clusters (Allison 1999). My data is such that respondents are nested in Population Sampling Units (i.e. local geographic areas). Adjusting for this clustering effect is essential to produce reliable estimates and accurate hypothesis testing (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Goldstein 1995). Furthermore, multilevel modeling is required to adequately address the hypotheses at hand as it offers a more complete picture concerning the effects of individual-level and structural-level factors on the outcome variables. However, adequate sample size becomes an issue when disaggregating by race and ethnicity. Only the nonHispanic white sub-sample is sufficiently large enough to conduct a multilevel analysis assessing the impact of social structure on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. As a result, my research specifically focuses on the attitudes of native-born, non-Hispanic white Americans. CONTRIBUTION My research contributes to the literature on intergroup beliefs and attitudes in important ways. First, my study will provide a systematic understanding of the importance of social structure in shaping attitudes1 in the context of the United States. This is particularly imperative in the contemporary era as the social structure of regions, cities, and rural areas within the U.S. continue to change dramatically (e.g. job restructuring, secondary migration, etc.) (Frey 2000, 2002, 2009; Suro and Singer 2002; Schmid 2003; Kandel and Cromartie 2004). As a result, attitudes are expected to change, but without prior knowledge of the way in which social structure influences attitudes, we will be unaware of how attitudes may be impacted. Second, results provide insight into the way social structure may influence immigration

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

1

The primary dependent variables modeled are (1) attitudes toward immigrants and (2) attitudes toward immigration policy. Yet, socialpsychological variables are also modeled, which include (3) racism toward Latinos, Asians, and African Americans (indices include social distance, contemporary stereotypes, and perceived societal contribution) and (4) perceived group threat (indices include perceived out-group size and perceived cultural threat).

Immigration and the American Response

7

attitudes in other national contexts or how attitudes may vary over time. Third, my research advances the literature on group threat, prejudice, and self-interest by bringing about a more complete understanding of the role that each factor plays in shaping attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy in the United States. The basis for this assertion stems from the more theoretically grounded and valid measurement of each concept. Lastly, by anchoring measures in theory and modeling structural, psychological (e.g. prejudice, group threat), as well as socio-demographic (self-interest) factors, a more comprehensive assessment can be made about the relative explanatory power of each theory with regard to Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Such an approach will thereby go beyond existing research and further our understanding of the manner in which various factors influence Americans’ attitudes on this critical phenomenon.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

PROBLEM:

The current immigration era in the United States has begun with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. This legislative action nullified the previous immigration acts of 1921 and 1924 (National Origins Quotas Acts of 1921, 1924), which virtually prohibited immigration from most countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. Although the U.S. government lifted these previous immigration restrictions it did not expect immigration rates to significantly increase. Yet, what resulted was a dramatic increase in the numbers of immigrants admitted to the U.S. The annual number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. has nearly tripled from 296,697 in 1965 to 849,807 in 2000, an increase of 286 percent (Reimers 1992; Immigration and Naturalization Service 2000). Since the year 2000, the total yearly number of immigrants securing permanent legal resident status has surpassed this figure (with the exception for the year 2003) and peaked in 2006 with a total of 1,266,129 immigrants being granted permanent status (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2009). The latest reported figures reveal 1,107,126 immigrants gained legal status in 2008.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

8

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Although not a phenomenon unique to the contemporary era, the sheer numbers of undocumented immigrants settling in the United States since the 1980’s is unprecedented (Espenshade 1995). From 1984 to 1994, the undocumented population was estimated to have increased 258,000 annually (Rivera-Batiz 2000). By 1996, the undocumented population residing in the United States was estimated at 5 million (Immigration and Naturalization Service 1997) and in 2000 it reportedly reached over 8 million (Passel 2006). More recent estimates place the total volume of undocumented immigrants at 11.6 million in 2006 (Hoefer et al. 2007). Undocumented immigration has thereby further raised the overall volume of immigration to the United States. As might be expected, the recent transition of the United States from an era of “non-immigration” (Massey 1995) to that of an era of “mass immigration” has lifted the topic of immigration to the forefront and has made it a national issue. In addition to the rising immigration levels in the aftermath of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the national origins of immigrants have also shifted. In 1960, 74.5 percent of the foreign-born were of European origin and 14.4 percent were of Latin American and Asian origin. By 2000 only 15.3 percent of the foreign-born were of European origin, while a full 76.5 percent were of Latin American and Asian origin (51% from Latin America; 25.5% from Asia) (U.S. Census Bureau 1999; U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). The latest released figures reveal this continuing shift with 80.6% of the foreign-born originating from Latin America and Asia (53.8% with Latin American origins and 26.8% from Asia) while only 12.5% hail from Europe (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). This overall shift is significant to note because it has converted the U.S. from a largely biracial society into a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society, thereby shifting the “color line” and complicating national identity in the process (Bean and Stevens 2003). Furthermore, this transition has played a key role in advancing immigration as a national issue. Immigration is a worldwide phenomenon that has increased throughout the latter part of the 20th century due to a variety of push/pull factors, including globalization (Bean and Stevens 2003). In the case of the United States, immigration during the later part of the 20th century has been a direct result of U.S. global military and

Immigration and the American Response

9

economic influence abroad, which caused a high degree of disruption that in turn resulted in high levels of emigration (push factor). Meanwhile, the abundance of job opportunities in the U.S. economy acted as a magnet to potential immigrants (pull factors). Although recently becoming more dispersed (Garcia 2009), immigrants in the United States today are more geographically concentrated than in the past with about 70 percent living in the six states of California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey (Bean and Bell-Rose 1999). This concentration has helped sustain distinctive language and cultural communities in certain areas of those states. Furthermore, transformations of the U.S. economy have resulted in an increasingly segmented labor market with few opportunities for economic and social mobility, especially for those with less education and lower skills. Yet, the degree of labor market segmentation varies across the United States. Therefore, the settlement patterns of immigrants and the differing nature of labor markets where they settle will likely not only determine their degree of social mobility, but will also shape intergroup relations between immigrants and the native-born in differing ways.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RESPONSES TO IMMIGRATION SINCE 1965 The rise in immigrant numbers since 1965 and the emergence of immigration as an important national issue has been paralleled by an increase in the proportion of Americans who want immigration levels decreased. Public opinion polls demonstrate that the percentage of Americans who wanted immigration decreased to be very low immediately prior to 1965, but had begun an upward incline from 1965 to the late 1970’s at which time it thereafter increased dramatically (see Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Lapinski et al. 1997). Today, half of Americans support legislation that would restrict the number of legal immigrants entering the United States (Gallup Organization 2009), and opposition against undocumented immigration is even more pervasive (Wilson 2001). In sum, much of the response to immigration in the United States has been negative, particularly during the contemporary era. The media has elicited predominately negative images of today’s

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

10

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

immigrants (Santa Ana 1999; Martinez-Brawley and Gualda 2009), particularly since the early 1980’s (Simon 1993). Recent immigration legislation in many regards has also been negative in nature. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, restricted access to public assistance programs for legal immigrants during their first five years in the country and barred non-citizen immigrants here longer than five years from some programs. This act has come despite evidence that legal immigrants both contribute more in taxes than they receive in assistance, and create jobs instead of displacing American workers (Simon 1995). The number of right-wing extremist parties has increased in response to the increase in numbers of immigrants and changes in the demographics of recent immigrants (Freeman 1997; Freeman and Kessler 2008). Although right-wing extremist parties are politically insignificant and have gained minimal power directly, they have successfully pushed the entire political spectrum to the right on the issue of immigration (Pettigrew 1998). As a result, left-wing and center politicians have turned to oppose immigration along with the right (Muller 1997). Immigration has thereby become an extremely politicized topic. Furthermore, numerous incidents of hate and hostility directed at immigrants have occurred. As witnessed by the Los Angeles riots of 1992, hate crimes committed against immigrants can be both numerous and extremely violent (Sanchez 1997). Since the passage of the hate crimes act in 1995, 7,308 incidents of hate crimes have been committed against Hispanics and 3,579 against Asians (groups which make up the majority of today’s immigrants) through 2008 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2009) and were predominately based on national origin (American Psychological Association 1998). Although alarming, these figures are still far shy of the actual number of incidents experienced by individuals of these groups as many such incidents go unreported by victims (particularly those who are undocumented) and law enforcement agencies (McVeigh, Welch and Bjarnason 2003). In principle, multiculturalism and global openness are ideals, yet Americans commonly engage in practices that disadvantage immigrants. Incidents of prejudice and bias against immigrants, and desires to restrict immigration is common, while Americans simultaneously pride themselves on being a “nation of immigrants” and

Immigration and the American Response

11

embrace the symbology of the Statue of Liberty (Perea 1997). While Gunnar Myrdal (1944) argued that the “American Dilemma”2 would be the biggest problem of the 20th century in America, now some pose immigration as the biggest problem of the 21st century in America (Esses et al. 2001). Unlike the previous immigration wave that had risen in 1880 and then largely tapered off by 1930, immigration today has likely become a permanent structural feature of U.S. society (Massey 1995). As a result, research concerning immigration is of great importance. GENERAL HYPOTHESES Overall, I expect to find structural conditions fostering intergroup association to act as a catalyst for anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes. This broad hypothesis is asserted for two main reasons. First, theory suggests an increase in intergroup association increases levels of “contact” and “competition”. However, generally the effects of competition have been found to supersede those of the liberalizing effects of “contact”, thereby resulting in heightened levels of negative out-group attitudes. Allport (1954) outlined conditions under which intergroup “contact” is theorized to reduce negative out-group attitudes. However, such conditions are unlikely to occur in society3. Second, prior research predominately demonstrates support for the competition hypothesis in studies of racial attitudes toward African Americans (see Key 1949; Fossett and Kiecolt 1989; Quillian 1996; Taylor 1998, 2000; Dixon and Rosenbaum 2004; Dixon 2006) and anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe (see Quillian 1995; Kunovich 2002; Semyonov et al. 2006; Mueleman et al. 2009). Yet, existing research on racial attitudes

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2

On the one hand, white Americans valued equality and opportunity for all, yet on the other hand, they engaged in practices that systematically disadvantaged Black Americans socially and economically. 3 For example, Allport (1954) theorized prejudice would be lessened when both groups: (1) have equal status; (2) have common goals; (3) are cooperatively interdependent; and (4) interact with support of authorities, laws, and customs.

12

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

toward Latinos and Asians and policies pertaining to both groups (e.g. immigration and English-only), provide mixed results showing support for the “contact” hypothesis in some cases and the “competition” hypothesis in others. It is therefore possible that social structural conditions fostering an increase in intergroup association with immigrants will actually break down support for anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes due to increased levels of intergroup “contact”. In my study, local structural conditions fostering increased intergroup association and competition are locales where the: (1) proportion of the immigrant population is substantial, (2) local immigrant population are growing at a fast pace, (3) immigrants and natives live in residentially integrated neighborhoods, (4) economic position of the native-born is precarious, (5) context is more urbanized, (6) regional area has a higher concentration of immigrants, and (7) immigrants and natives compete occupationally. Although not the main focus of my study, individual level measures of sociodemographics and psychological factors are also incorporated. I expect to find heightened levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant views among individuals exhibiting high levels of racism and group threat and among those with low socio-economic status.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

STRUCTURE OF MONOGRAPH In Chapter 2, I define and discuss theories of social structure, group threat, racism, and self-interest and how they relate to attitudes toward immigrants, immigration policy, and other intergroup processes. Based on previous research an assessment is provided concerning the strength of each theory in explaining the issue at hand. Lastly, I specify the many ways in which these theories are complementary and competing. In Chapter 3, I outline previous approaches to the conceptualization and operationalization of theories of social structure, group threat, prejudice, and self-interest. Taking this approach enables a more concrete understanding regarding the operationalization and measurement of concepts presented in the subsequent data and methods chapter. Also, my theoretical model is presented as a way to guide the reader through the discussion of these four theories and how I organize

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Immigration and the American Response

13

and synthesize them to better explain attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. The causal sequence is detailed In Chapter 4, I present the data and methods segment of my study. I introduce a discussion concerning the type of research design most conducive to the topic at hand and my rationale for the design selected here. My selection and grounds for choosing the sample population is provided. A description of the dataset is presented along with the many advantages it offers to the investigation of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Next, I provide a methods section that outlines the quantitative approach taken and the techniques used to better address the hierarchical data structure. The operationalization and measurement of the dependent variables and the four major theories is provided. Confirmatory factor analysis results confirm the argument that attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward immigration policy are two separate dimensions of the same underlying construct, which I argue here as native-born--foreign-born intergroup relations. Lastly, I provide a detailed summary of multilevel modeling techniques, including multilevel sub-models, and how they will be used to better address the hypotheses at hand. In Chapter 5, I detail a sub-section illustrating the distribution of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration to address the question “what is the contemporary state of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration?” My first major research question (how does social structure influence attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy?) is addressed with a multilevel analysis predicting higher levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant attitudes. Measures of social structure are entered into the analysis while controlling for socio-demographics and measures of self-interest. Results are reported for the full sample of respondents and also a sub-sample of residents in metropolitan areas. A summary and discussion section is added at the end of the chapter. In Chapter 6, measures of group threat and racism are respectively added to the final models presented in Chapter 5. Results are reported focusing on the predictive power of social psychological factors on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Moreover, the role of social psychological factors as mediators of structural level effects are

14

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

detailed here. A summary and discussion section is added at the end of the chapter. In Chapter 7, I produce multilevel models of social-psychological measures of perceived group threat and racism. The purpose here is to assess the indirect effects of social structure channeled through social psychological factors. A reassessment of the role of social structure is produced accounting for both direct and indirect effects. Finally, I present the conclusion in Chapter 8. I begin this concluding chapter by summarizing the study at hand. Thereafter, I summarize the main results reported in Chapters five, six, and seven. A discussion of the theoretical implications of my study follows. The Chapter concludes with a section discussing policy implications of my study and directions for future research.

CHAPTER 2

Theoretical Frameworks: Social Structure, Group Threat, Racism, & Self-Interest

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Although many explanations have been advanced concerning the apparent high level of anti-immigrant resentment among Americans, there is confusion concerning which factors really conjure antiimmigrant sentiment and which most effectively explain negative attitudes toward immigrants. Here, I attempt to shed light on these issues in order to provide a better understanding concerning why Americans today want immigration restricted despite being a “nation of immigrants.” The broader literature concerning anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes is examined using theories of social structure, racism, group threat, and self-interest. In the subsequent chapter (Chapter 3), I draw from existing research to illustrate the operationalization and measurement of the four theories in prior research. THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE The definition of structure in sociological literature varies widely. On the one hand, structure is defined in very broad, abstract terms by many 15

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

16

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

sociological theorists. Spencer (1882) and Durkheim (1933) compared society to a living organism which has tissue and organs that are interrelated and function together in order to sustain the life of the organism. As an organism has these parts that are interrelated and function together, so does society. With this view they argue that society cannot be completely understood without taking into account all its parts together. The interrelated parts of society comprise what these sociological theorists consider structure. Working off of this broad definition of structure, Levi-Strauss (1963) similarly defined social structure as consisting of interrelated parts. Levi-Strauss also argued social structure to be a theoretical system constructed to explain reality, and that social structure had nothing to do with empirical reality. With this view social structure is not observable and cannot be approximated or measured. As a result, the impact of social structure on social processes cannot be tested under this guise. Yet, on the other hand, despite adopting the broad definition of structure as consisting of interrelated parts, various sociological theorists view structure as an abstraction that is observable and therefore measurable. RadcliffeBrown (1940) argued that social structures consist of observable aspects of social life, not theories about it. According to RadcliffeBrown it is such observable aspects of social life that provide the basis for building theory. As a result, the effects of social structure on social processes can be directly tested under such a definition. In addition to the aforementioned distinctions in previous definitions of social structure, the different versions of social structure vary overall in their focus in two main ways (Blau 1977). On the one hand, the micro approach to social structure includes a focus on human relations based on underlying social psychological processes. Analyses utilizing such a focus often involve an analysis of human relations in small groups. On the other hand, the macro approach to social structure involves an analysis of social relations within entire societies, thereby allowing for a wider scope. The macro approach thereby enables a clearer understanding of social structure and its effect on social relations. Like Radcliffe-Brown, Blau (1977) adopts the viewpoint that social structures are observable aspects of social life. Taking on a macro approach to social structure, Blau conceptualizes the component

Theoretical Frameworks

17

parts of social structure as groups or classes of people where the interrelationships among the parts are the social relations of people in different groups. Therefore, Blau’s social structure refers to

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“Population distributions among social positions along various lines—positions that reflect and affect people’s role relations and social associations. To speak of social structure is to speak of social differentiation among people, for social structure, as conceptualized, is rooted in the social distinctions people make in their role relations and associations with one another (Blau 1977: 3).” In Blau’s (1977) theoretical framework of social structure, people occupy different social positions because they are part of different groups or because they differ in hierarchical status. He argues that social positions as well as the interrelationships among them are “manifest” in observable patterns. Blau argues social structure to be “an abstraction from these observable patterns, which are the empirical foundation of the abstracted structures of differentiated social positions and role relations (Blau 1977: 1).” Therefore, within Blau’s conceptual framework, people occupy several social positions, and society’s social structure comprises all of them. As a result, it is impossible to speak of social structure in the singular. In turn, Blau considers social structure, “as a multidimensional space of different social positions among which a population is distributed. The social associations of people provide both the criterion for distinguishing social positions and the connections among them that make them elements of a single social structure (Blau 1977: 4).” According to Blau there are three forms of differentiation. The first, heterogeneity, refers to people’s distribution among different groups with distinct boundaries, yet without an inherent rank order (e.g. a city’s ethnic diversity). The second, inequality, refers to a population’s unevenness in the distribution of resources or status (e.g. uneven distribution of wealth). The third, intersection, refers to the degree of correlation between “heterogeneity” and “inequality” (e.g. intersection between race and occupation). Under this theory of social structure, population distributions of various social positions are the

18

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

focus, while the substantive portion of social positions is not. “For example, not the significance of race but that of racial heterogeneity is a subject of structural inquiry; not the significance of the nature of occupations but that of the division of labor; not the significance of leadership but that of inequality in power (Blau 1977: 11).” As a result, the main questions that the theory is designed to answer are: How do structural conditions modify the relationship between psychological variables and social relations? How does the interrelationship between social positions affect intergroup relations? (Blau 1977). In sum, social structure impacts intergroup relations in important ways. Even if people have no in-group preferences, structural constraints can lead them to primarily interact with people in their own group and will likely shape their preferences as such in the long run. Blau acknowledges this theory of social structure to be a primitive one, confined to the rudimentary properties of social structure. “In particular, it ignores cultural differences, and another theory is required to deal with them (Blau 1977: 245).” As a result, sociological premises have to be combined with premises of structure to arrive at conclusions. The logical formulations employed make the explanations structural.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Blau’s Heterogeneity Blau (1977) provides a detailed framework regarding the several ways Several of these social structure impacts intergroup relations. postulates are particularly vital to understanding the influence of social structure on Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. To start, one of the most important components of Blau’s theory of social structure is group size and distribution, a form of heterogeneity. Blau argues that members of the numerical minority group will have more extensive intergroup relations with members of the majority group than members of the majority group will have with members of the minority group. This will be reflective in the minority groups’ higher levels of intermarriage and intergroup associations. On the other hand, most members of the majority group will not have extensive relations with members of the minority group. Furthermore, the greater the difference in size between the two groups, the greater the discrepancy in associations between them. Blau argues that the larger

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Frameworks

19

the proportion make-up of the minority group (at a given geographic level), the more frequent the majority groups association with the minority group will be. In applying this property to the study of native born--foreign born intergroup relations, it would be assumed that as the ratio of native-born to foreign-born persons decreases in a given locale, the amount of association the native-born population has with the foreign-born population increases. Increased intergroup association leads to increased levels of “contact” and “competition”. Increased intergroup “contact” is argued to result in more liberal attitudes among in-group members toward out-group members (Allport 1954). On the other hand, increased intergroup association also translates into increased intergroup competition, which is argued to increase stereotypes and other negative views toward members of the out-group (Blalock 1967). Clearly two competing social processes are at work resulting from increased levels of intergroup association. While increased intergroup association can break down negative stereotypes through “contact”, it can also build up stereotypes through “competition”. In the United States, the group size of immigrants, the historical legacy of immigration, and the recent immigrant growth rate all vary by locale and region (Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Frey 2002a.,b., 2009; Suro and Singer 2002). In particular, recent immigrant growth in non-traditional immigrant destinations has received considerable attention and it can be assumed that residents of such areas will likely react differently than residents of traditional immigrant destinations. Schmid (2003) illustrates how the former states of the Confederate South (with the exception of Texas and Florida) had largely been skipped over by immigration throughout history, even by European immigration at the turn of the 20th century. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that immigrants began to settle in the South in large numbers with most originating from Latin America and Asia. Due to its long history of racism, such demographic shifts have the potential to result in a disproportionate negative reaction toward today’s immigrants. The Midwest has also become a more frequent immigrant destination in the contemporary era with Latin American immigrants settling in contexts ranging from small towns to large metropolises (McConnell 2004, 2008; Miraftab and McConnell 2008). Moreover, Latinos are settling in a rather uneven fashion across the Midwestern landscape reflecting

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

20

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

differing economic needs (Chapa et al. 2004). Yet, overall most immigrants still settle in gateway regions therefore making growth most substantial in those areas (Frey 2002c.). In addition, to the dispersal of immigrants, native-born Americans are experiencing considerable levels of internal migration in the United States, leaving the Midwest, Northeast, and California for the Sun-belt states of the West and South (Frey 2001a., 2002a.). Such shifts are important to note due to the inherent change in the population structure of sending and receiving areas. Overall, whites are leaving immigrant gateway areas, although recently internal migration patterns slowed considerably (Frey 2009). An additional component that should not be overlooked is the internal growth of the immigrant population (Bean, Swicegood and Berg 2000). Vital Statistics records indicate that in 2000 more than one in five births (21.4%) occurred to a foreign-born mother (Martin et al. 2002). The growth in the second generation is important to note because they are likely to speak a non-English language with their families and it is often assumed that anyone speaking a non-English language is foreign regardless of nativity status (Stevens 2001). These factors are likely to lead to the incorrect perception that there are more immigrants in the U.S. than is actually the case. As a result, the degree that native-born Americans compete or have a chance to compete with immigrants in economic and social aspects is therefore likely to widely vary by locale and region. Accounting for the population distribution (or population structure) at the local and regional levels will be essential to gauging the extent of intergroup association and competition between foreign-born and native-born Americans. Another important component here is the rate of growth of the foreign-born population. In locales where the foreign-born population increases substantially, intergroup association and competition between foreign-born and native-born persons will ultimately be on the increase, thereby making it an important factor to consider particularly due to the uneven settlement of immigrants across the United States. An additional form of heterogeneity addressed by Blau concerns the relationship between population size (and population density) and intergroup association. Blau (1977) argues the probability of intergroup

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Frameworks

21

association and conflict increases with population size and population density. Since more urbanized places attract diverse peoples and funnel them into one area, increased chance of association with out-group members in an urbanized context results in increased intergroup association and conflict. Therefore, accounting for the type of community (population size and density) will be important in addressing the impact of social structure on intergroup association between native-born Americans and immigrants. An ongoing trend since 1930 has been the movement of whites out of central city areas and into surrounding suburban areas. Suburbanization Recently, disproportionately involved whites until the 1970’s. immigrant growth in central cities has recently played a role in revitalizing those areas. Whites are primarily moving away from immigrant gateway metro areas, thereby making immigration accountable for population stabilization in entire metro areas (Frey 2002b.). Although the suburbs have become far more diverse with immigrants settling in suburban areas (Frey 2001b., 2003), residential segregation levels persist at the same high level in those areas (Logan 2001a.). Suburban areas are beginning to be characterized as consisting of a middle-to-senior aged white population and a young non-white population (Frey 2003). Rural America has also undergone a significant change in diversification (McConnell 2004, 2008 Miraftab and McConnell 2008) as Hispanics are now the most rapidly growing demographic group in rural and small town America with settlement increasingly including non-traditional settlement areas (Kandel and Cromartie 2004). Yet, overall more urbanized communities appear to foster the highest levels of intergroup association. According to the group conflict model, increased competition and conflict with an outgroup results in increased negative views toward the out-group (Blalock 1967). Here increased conflict with immigrants will likely transpire into negative views toward immigrants and stronger support for immigration restrictions. Lastly, Blau addressed how physical propinquity (or segregation) can either act as a major deterrent or actually increase intergroup association, even without in-group preferences on the part of majority group members. On the one hand, the more residential segregation exists between groups, the lower the level of intergroup association.

22

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

On the other hand, the more integrated groups are residentially, the higher the level of intergroup association and potential for intergroup conflict. Swicegood, Stevens, and Parnell (1995) reveal historical occurrences where intergroup competition over housing has lead to open conflict. In the United States, the degree that immigrants are residentially segregated and isolated from the native-born population varies greatly by locale. Immigrants entering locales with plentiful housing and space have the ability to form an ethnic enclave if one is not already formed. Ethnic enclaves facilitate community organization, stability, and economic independence for its members (Bean and Stevens 2003). Bean, Van Hook, and Fossett (1999) found that the larger the immigrant enclave and the more segregated immigrants were from natives, the more natives prosper as immigrants take up occupations in their own economic niche separate from the native-born. Such residential patterns therefore lessen the amount of actual competition between immigrants and the native-born, which would presumably result in more liberal attitudes on immigration. Logan et al. (2001b.) reveals that despite growing rates of diversity, segregation levels persist thereby suggesting Americans’ intergroup conflict over time (with rapid growth of immigrant populations in the U.S.) has been greatly inhibited by segregation.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Blau’s Inequality The “inequality” form of Blau’s theory of social structure is important to understanding the impact of local area economic structure on intergroup association and competition. According to Blau (1997), as income inequality increases, individuals are more likely to interact with others of a different economic standing. Applying this to majorityminority intergroup relations, this suggests the greater the inequality experienced by members of the majority group, the more likely they are to associate with others of a different socio-economic background. Since minority group members on average have a lower socioeconomic standing than the majority group, higher levels of income inequality experienced by members of the majority group translate into increased intergroup association and competition between majority and minority group members. Moreover, Quillian (1996) argues that poorer

Theoretical Frameworks

23

economic conditions increase competition for scarce resources, thereby leading to higher levels of fear that “in-group” members’ economic advantage will be damaged through competition with the “out-group”. In applying this property to the study of native born--foreign born intergroup relations, increased intergroup association and competition will occur in areas where the economic status of native-born Americans is precarious. Blau’s Intersection

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Blau’s (1977: 273) central thesis is that intergroup relations depend on the degree to which structural parameters intersect and are inhibited by consolidated status and group differences, which are reflected in strong positive correlations of parameters (namely correlation between heterogeneity and inequality). Blau’s intersection is largely based upon Simmel’s (1955) concept of “cross-cutting social circles”4. For example, a person often has multiple group affiliations such as belonging to a given ethnic group, having a given occupation, living in a given neighborhood, having a given socio-economic status, etc. Oftentimes a person will interact with others according to each group affiliation, but since a person has multiple group affiliations there is potential for interaction with others from a diverse range of social positions as they are interacting with members from a large range of groups. On the other hand, a person’s multiple group affiliations could work in the opposite direction by limiting their socialization to a homogeneous group. In other words, the stronger the correlations between parameters (e.g. correlation between race and income), the less frequent are the associations between persons whose attributes differ (Blau 1980). Therefore, even if people have no in-group preferences, structural constraints are likely to lead them to interact with people in their own group and will likely shape their preferences as such in the long run.

4

Simmel’s (1908) concept of cross-cutting social circles is conceptualized at the individual level, while Blau expands upon it and incorporates it into his macro level theory.

24

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

For example, in a community where race, education, and residential location are highly correlated, members of such a community are likely to only associate with other members of the same race as well as with other members of the same educational level. Blau’s theorem of correlated parameters rests on the assumption that people prefer to associate with other in-group members. Yet, such an assumption is not of vital importance. For instance, even a member of a given race that wants to associate with members of another race is not likely to do so because of racial segregation. Under such conditions, physical distance reinforces the inhibiting effects of in-group preferences, thereby reducing intergroup contact even though an individual may not abide by such in-group preferences.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“Variations in structural conditions among societies largely govern the variations in intergroup relations among them, and these variations have undoubtedly profound consequences for the experiences and orientations of individuals, for the integration of society, and for its political institutions (Blau 1977: 273).” A recurring point made in this study concerns how immigrants settle and impact locales in different ways. In some locales immigrants readily compete occupationally with native-born Americans while in other locales immigrants generally occupy separate segments of the labor force. Occupational distribution in a given locale is a form of Blau’s “inequality” while racial distribution is a form of “heterogeneity”. Therefore, the intersection between race and occupation is a form of structural level intersection (Blau et al. 1984: 589). The intersection of both parameters is important to consider in order to determine the extent of occupational competition between immigrants and native-born Americans in a given area. Historically occupational segregation was found to play a discernable role in levels of ethnic conflict (Olzak 1992). Americans residing in areas witnessing a considerable amount of intergroup occupational competition with immigrants are likely to express higher levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant attitudes due to increased levels of competition in the local labor force.

Theoretical Frameworks

25

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Significance of Social Structure in Past Research Although limited and underdeveloped, evidence from prior research shows attitudes toward immigration vary across geographic space. Evidence largely stems from the group size dimension of Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure. For example, in the context of Europe, findings generally indicate a large immigrant group size and/or poor economic conditions, conjure anti-immigrant sentiment5 (Quillian 1995; Kunovich 2002; Semyonov 2006, Mueleman et al. 2009). While not actually testing the effects of social structure, prior research shows Americans’ attitudes to vary substantially by region and community type (urban vs. suburban; metro vs. non-metro) (see Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Burns and Gimpel 2000; DeJong and Tran 2001; Griffin and McFarland 2007; Fennelly and Federico 2008). Difference in social structure is likely the cause of this variation. Furthermore, a structural/contextual approach has been implemented in other areas of intergroup relations and has proved to be vital in bringing about a better understanding of such intergroup processes. Building upon prior studies showing higher levels of anti-black racism among whites residing in predominately black areas (e.g. Key 1949; Pettigrew 1957; Fossett and Kiecolt 1989), Taylor’s (1998, 2000) highly acclaimed work expanded upon these prior studies with findings confirming this persisting relationship as well as uncovering a positive relationship between percent black and opposition to policies that would improve the conditions of blacks. Similarly, Quillian (1996) showed that the decline in racism toward blacks over time within the South and between the South and non-South regional areas was attributed to the threat that blacks posed to Southerners demographically (percent black at regional level). More recently, research has further confirmed this relationship between percent black and whites’ stereotypes of blacks until accounting for whites’ level of intergroup contact with blacks, a factor not previously considered (see Dixon and Rosenbaum 2004; Dixon 2006). 5

Although research generally supports the aforementioned relationship, evidence also exists showing “immigrant group size” to be a non-factor (see Hjerm 2007; Escandell and Ceobanu 2009).

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

26

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Conversely, the effect of Latino and/or Asian context on whites’ attitudes toward these groups and policies pertaining to them has been mixed. Ayers et al. (2009) find among whites in San Diego, California that opposition toward both immigration and amnesty for undocumented workers to increase with percent Latino at the census tract level. Similarly, Stein et al. (2000) uncovered a positive relationship between Latino group size and increased levels of support for immigration restrictions among Texans. Analyzing a sample of rural Americans, Gimpel and Lay (2008) find a positive relationship between percent immigrant and opposition to diversity among rural Americans with strong family roots in their respective communities. Yet, many studies have failed to show a link between the group size of Asians and Latinos and racism (see Taylor 1998; Burns and Gimpel 2000; Dixon and Rosenbaum 2004; Dixon 2006). Also, results reported in some studies failed to confirm a link between Asian and Latino group size and related policy views such as support for EnglishOnly legislation (Citrin et al. 1990; Frendreis and Tatalovich 1997) and immigration restrictions (Cummings and Lambert 1998; Alba et al. 2005; Haubert and Fussell 2006; Pantoja 2006; Fennelly and Federico 2008). Instead of finding a positive effect between racial/ethnic context and negative attitudes, Hood and Morris (1997) found whites’ attitudes toward Asians and Hispanics became more favorable as Latino and Asian context increased. Interestingly, Tolbert and Hero (1996) found a curvilinear relationship between Latino context and support for Proposition 187. White Californians residing in counties with either few Latinos or high concentrations of Latinos exhibited the highest levels of support for Proposition 187 while residents of counties with moderately sized Latino populations were least likely to support the amendment. Other studies also show a liberalizing effect of Latino/Asian context when the items interact with other factors. For example, Rocha and Espino (2009) using a stratified sample find that upon controlling for levels of segregation, “percent Spanish-speaking Latino” has a liberalizing effect thereby reducing levels of support for legislation restricting immigration and/or making English the official language of the United States. Similarly, Berg (2009) finds “percent foreign-born” to have the same liberalizing effect on whites’ attitudes toward immigrants. However, this liberalizing effect does not hold for

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Frameworks

27

whites with “tight” and “homogenous” social networks where Berg instead finds immigrant group size to have the opposite effect thereby resulting in heightened negative views of immigrants. In sum, it appears that increasing context with blacks (e.g. % black) results in increased levels of anti-black attitudes, while increasing context with Asians and Latinos is found to have a mixed influence on racial attitudes toward Latinos and Asian and policies pertaining to them. Forbes (1997) explains such divergent findings coming as a result of whites viewing Latinos as closer to themselves culturally and points to Census data showing high proportions of Latinos self-identifying as “white”. Similarly Taylor (1998) contends that numbers of Latinos and Asians at the local level may not provoke a strong response among white Americans because the existing racial resentment against Latinos and Asians may not be very strong and therefore Latino and Asian context doesn’t provoke an increased negative response as occurs in the case of blacks. Another reason for divergent findings might be due to the lack of sufficient numbers of Asians and perhaps even Latinos at the aggregate level in some previous studies. Many of the earlier existing studies used nationally based samples with Census data from 1980 and 1990 to compute the percent Asian and the percent Latino at the county level. In those Census years, Asians in particular were predominately concentrated in specific states and in certain metropolitan areas. Therefore conducting such a contextual analysis at the national level had likely led to various analytical problems such as an inadequate degree of variation to reliably test their contextual level hypotheses as the majority of counties sampled probably ranged from 0 to 3.5% Asian. In order to remedy such a problem, analyses should have been limited to states with higher concentrations of Asians and Latinos, which would allow a high enough degree variation and large enough group size to adequately test contextual level hypotheses. Yet, even studies confining their research to states or counties with higher average levels of Latinos show mixed results (e.g. Tolbert and Hero 1996; Stein 2000; Ayers et al. 2009; Rocha and Espino 2009). In regard to other structural factors, Fossett and Kiecolt (1989) found lower levels of support for racial integration among Southerners and among whites residing in small communities. Using a stratified

28

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

sample, Rocha and Espino (2009) find that higher levels of racial/ethnic residential integration with “Spanish speaking Latinos” results in more favorable views of immigration among white Americans. Surprisingly, Taylor (1998, 2000) found no effect for region of residence, segregation, or local area economic indicators. Berg (2009) finds no relationship for “percent unemployment at local level” or “logged local population size” on whites’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Overall, I expect to find structural factors to strongly predict attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Structural conditions that foster intergroup association are expected to translate into increased intergroup conflict and competition, thereby prompting increased levels of negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Yet, as prior research has shown, Latino and Asian context has resulted in mixed findings. It is therefore possible that social structural conditions fostering an increase in intergroup association with Latinos and Asians will actually break down support for anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes due to increased levels of intergroup “contact”. Structural conditions fostering an increase in intergroup association are expected to be highest in locales with a: (1) large Latino and Asian context; (2) fast growing Latino and Asian population; (3) in the Southwest region of the U.S.; (4) more urbanized context; (5) high level of residential segregation; (6) high level of economic deprivation; and (7) high level of intergroup occupational competition.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

GROUP THREAT THEORY Group threat theory factors in the socio-historical and structural experiences of groups in society in an attempt to move beyond psychological models that focus on individual level attributes as determinants of intergroup hostility and racism. The theory of group threat particularly emphasizes how intergroup conflict and hostility grows out of unequal intergroup outcomes. Blumer’s (1958) group position model has been the basis for this focus on group level dynamics in explaining intergroup prejudice and hostilities. In his group position model Blumer contends that feelings of competition and

Theoretical Frameworks

29

hostility emerge from historically and collectively developed judgments about the positions in the social order that in-group members should rightly occupy relative to members of an out-group. Blumer argues that there are four major elements in establishing the sense of group position, which are: (1) group identity -- belief about in-group superiority, (2) out-group stereotyping -- in-group members view out group members as alien and different, (3) preferred group status -sense of group position involves assumptions of proper or proprietary claim over certain rights, statuses, or privileges, and (4) perceived threat -- feeling that out-group members desire a greater share of those rights, resources, statuses, or privileges that are understood to belong to the in-group. The group position model therefore incorporates both social structure and individual psychology in explaining intergroup prejudice and hostility. The latter element of Blumer’s group position model, perceived threat, has received the most attention by researchers in the area of intergroup beliefs and attitudes. Since the perceived threat element focuses on group dynamics it has been given the label group threat and has been used to explain in-group prejudice toward out-groups. Theories of group threat have also been used to explain ingroup opposition toward out-group related policy issues (e.g. opposition to policies assisting Blacks). It is important to note that Blumer’s perceived threat element of his group position model is conceptualized as a subjective assessment of group interests, not an objective or rational assessment. Therefore, perceived group threat may originate from real group conflict, but such conflict or an actual threat, is not necessary for perceived threat to occur. In sum, the more the in-group feels their rights, resources, statuses, interests, or privileges are threatened by an out-group, the more prejudice and hostile they will be.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Extensions of Blumer’s Group Threat Theory There are several revised accounts of the perceived threat element of Blumer’s group position theory of prejudice (see Blalock 1967; Bobo 1983; 1988; Quillian 1995; Bobo and Hutchings 1996; Esses et al. 1998). All variants of the theory emphasize that hostility toward outgroup members by in-group members is a response to the “competitive

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

30

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

threat” that out-group members pose to the economic and social interests of in-group members (Wilson 2001). Emphasizing the competitive nature of intergroup relations, it is the fear among in-group members that they will be put at a systematic disadvantage to the outgroup. Such resentment in turn leads the in-group to foster feelings of threat toward the out-group followed by attempts to remove the threat (e.g. support repatriation of undocumented immigrants). Yet, even with this common thread across all the various modifications of Blumer’s perceived threat theory, there are important insights offered by the various adjustments of the theory. While Blumer (1958) emphasized perceived threat as a major determinant of in-group prejudice toward out-groups, Blalock (1967) argued the importance lies in the realistic threat posed by out-group members. Building off of the notion of “realistic threat”, Bobo (1983; 1988) developed realistic conflict theory, in which he argued that out-groups often pose a “real threat” to the resources and accepted practices of the in-group, not just irrational “perceived threats”. Intergroup conflict includes a struggle over power, values, status, and other scarce resources in which the in-group attempts to maintain their privileged position and prevent out-groups from gaining resources. As a result, prejudice formed by the dominant group is a response to collective threats against the real interests of the dominant racial group, rather than perceived threats to group interests. By emphasizing the “real” threat that out-groups pose, Bobo’s realistic conflict theory shares materialist assumptions with Marxist theory, thereby standing in contrast to Blumer (Quillian 1995). The emphasis on realistic threat has been a significant addition to group threat theory, which many view as now consisting of two dimensions, which are “perceived” and “actual” threat dimensions. Esses et al. (1998) similarly incorporated the realistic threat dimension into their modification of group threat theory. Yet, their contribution largely lies in the establishment of a more clear-cut causal sequence between realistic threat and perceived threat. In their group conflict model, Esses and colleagues argued that resource stress (perception that within a society access to resources may be limited to certain groups) and the salience of a potentially competitive out-group, lead to perceived group competition for resources, which in turn leads

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Frameworks

31

to the formation of negative attitudes toward the out-group and attempts to remove competition from the out-group. Since Esses and colleagues primarily examined the role of economics on the formation of intergroup prejudice and hostility, they heavily emphasized the role of zero-sum competition in their model, which is the belief that the more economic resources an out-group has, the less economic resources there will be for the in-group. Lastly, Quillian’s (1995) modification of perceived threat theory actually consists of a combination of approaches produced by Blumer, Blalock, and Lieberson and encompasses four major tenets. The first tenet states that prejudice is the result of in-group members feeling their prerogatives are threatened by the out-group. Second, the size of the out-group relative to the in-group is a major demographic cause of perceived threat as a large out-group is perceived as a greater threat to the in-groups’ prerogatives than a smaller out-group. Third, in-groups are more threatened when the economic situation of their country is precarious, which in turn leads them to have higher levels of prejudice. Such a sequence occurs because poorer conditions increase competition for scarce resources, which leads to higher levels of fear that the ingroup members’ economic advantage will be damaged through competition with the out-group. Fourth, the more the in-group is threatened, the stronger the association between some individual level characteristics and prejudice. In applying group threat theory to the study of native-born-foreign-born intergroup relations it would be assumed that the more the native-born perceived the foreign-born as a threat, the more negative will be their views toward immigrants and immigration policy. Perceived social threat is particularly exemplified in the resistance and dislike of the native-born toward the increasing linguistic diversity of the United States as a result of the many different non-English languages immigrants bring to the U.S. This point is illustrated in the strong support for English-only policies to date as 30 states have an English-Only policy and several more are considering similar legislation (U.S. English 2009). Perceived social threat also comes in various other forms such as the perception that immigrant groups consist of a numerically large proportion of the overall U.S. population when in fact they only made-up 10.4% of the U.S. population in the

32

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

year 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a) and according to the latest figures 12.5% in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Prior research documents the strong tendency for certain Americans to substantially overestimate the size of minority populations (see Nadeau and Niemi 1995; Sigelman and Niemi 2001; Alba et al. 2005), thereby exemplifying heightened levels of perceived threat (see Nadeau et al. 1993). In sum, Americans who feel threatened by increasing levels of linguistic diversity as well as those that substantially overestimate the numeric size of immigrant groups are expected to respond to their heightened sense of group threat by recording higher levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant attitudes.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Complementarities of Group Threat Theory and Social Structure Upon comparing the various theories of group threat with Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure there is clearly overlap between both theories. Blau’s theory of social structure outlines the conditions under which intergroup association increases thereby shaping intergroup relations as well as intergroup beliefs and attitudes. Group threat theory provides an exegesis concerning the conditions under which an out-group poses a threat to an in-group, which includes a focus on the degree to which out-group members compete with members of the ingroup. This overlap is further illustrated in the measurement of both theories. Blau (1977) argues that population structure is an important characteristic to consider because the greater the proportional size of the numeric minority group, the more members of the majority group will associate and compete with the minority group. Similarly, minority group size is used to measure group threat (see Quillian 1995, 1996), based on the argument that relatively larger out-groups are perceived as a greater threat than relatively smaller out-groups. Therefore, contextual level measures of group size overlap with both theories. Although a major dimension of group threat theory focuses on the degree to which out-groups actually compete with members of an ingroup (Bobo 1983, 1988), its overall focus is on the various ways in which out-group members threaten in-group members. Such a focus

Theoretical Frameworks

33

therefore departs from Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure, which concentrates on how structure shapes intergroup relations. Yet, these theories should be viewed as complementary rather than competing. Applications of Group Threat Theory Bobo and Hutchings (1996) tested Blumer’s original group position model to ascertain it’s viability in the contemporary United States. Using data from the multi-racial and multi-ethnic context of Los Angeles, Bobo and Hutchings found strong support for Blumer’s group position model in explaining the extent to which whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians viewed one another as locked in competitive social relations. Their findings showed that perceptions of group threat involve social-psychological processes that are not reducible to a single cause or to individual-level psychological dynamics. In the end, substantial percentages of whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians were found to perceive members of other groups as zero-sum competitive threats for social resources. Furthermore, there was an inherent order in the extent each group felt threatened. Blacks perceived the most threat, followed by Latinos, Asians, and finally whites, which reflects the historical and contemporary forms of racial subordination these groups have faced. In conclusion, Bobo and Hutchings argue:

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“Blumer’s group-position model provides the most comprehensive theoretical leverage and goes further to emphasize that identity, stereotypes, values, and assessments of interests are shaped historically and involve a collective and relational dimension between groups that powerfully engages emergent normative ideas about appropriate group statuses and entitlements (Bobo and Hutchings 1996, p. 968).” Since group threat theory is based on group level dynamics, it is applicable to the situations of numerous groups in various settings and at various points in time across the world. The widespread applicability of this theory enhances its validity and generalizability. Probably the most frequent application of group threat theory has come with its use in explaining whites’ attitudes toward blacks and whites’

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

34

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

attitudes toward racialized policies in the context of the United States (see Bobo 1988; Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Bobo, Kluegel and Smith 1997; Quillian 1996). For example, Blumer’s group position model has been the foundation for Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith’s (1997) “laissez faire racism” (see section on racism for more details). Another example stems from Bobo and Kluegel (1993) who argued that the gap between the high level of support whites have toward overall principles of equal opportunity and the low level of support whites have for policies that attempt to bring about equal opportunity (race-targeted policies), exists because equal opportunity policies are particularly threatening to whites. On the other hand, the high level of support for the principle of equal opportunity coincides with contemporary norms of equality. Lastly, Quillian (1996) showed that the decline in racism toward blacks over time within the South and between the South and non-South regional areas was attributed to the threat that blacks posed to Southerners both demographically and economically. Moreover, group threat theory has been used to explain native-born attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in several different contexts. Quillian (1995) showed that it was the actual group threat that immigrants posed (e.g. the immigrant group size and the economic conditions at the country level) that explained most of the variation in levels of racial and anti-immigrant prejudice across various European countries, not individual level factors (e.g. education, political orientation, etc.). Kunovich (2002) and Semyonov (2006) confirmed many of Quillian’s earlier findings with a more contemporary data source and McLaren (2003) showed immigrant group size strongly predicts anti-immigrant attitudes among Europeans. Mueleman et al. (2009) found a notable relationship between immigrant group size and shifting anti-immigration attitudes among Europeans over time. Using an experimental design, Florack et al. (2003) found that the degree of perceived threat that respondents sensed was strongly related to attitudes toward immigrant acculturation in Germany. Those with highest levels of perceived threat felt immigrants should be excluded from Germany, while those with lowest levels of perceived threat felt immigrants should be integrated within German society, and finally, those with moderate levels of threat felt that immigrants should assimilate. Also, using experimental manipulations, Esses et al. (1998,

Theoretical Frameworks

35

2001) used group threat theory to show that Canadian and U.S. respondents who were made to view immigrants as succeeding in a struggling Canadian economy (and therefore being perceived as a job threat) expressed significantly less favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Lastly, in the U.S. context, Wilson (2001) showed that the more threatened native-born white Americans were of immigrants, the more likely they were to support immigration restrictions6. Espenshade and Hempstead (1996) showed that since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, which is around the period when immigration numbers became substantial in our contemporary period, unemployment rates and levels of anti-immigration have been highly correlated. Both Chandler and Tsai (2001) and Simcox (1997) showed that the more Americans were threatened by the wide utilization of non-English languages in U.S. society, the more likely they were to want immigration levels restricted. The latter studies reported here importantly illustrates that cultural interests, not just economic interests, play a significant role in the formation of anti-immigration attitudes. THEORIES OF RACISM Racism is commonly alluded to as the driving force behind the contemporary anti-immigrant movement in the United States. Advocates of this position point to the large racial and ethnic minority composition of today’s immigrant population7 and the differential views afforded immigrants that came long ago (mostly European) and those coming today (largely minority) (see Simon and Lynch 1993).

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

6

Although these specific results are quite interesting, there is no surprise that attitudes toward immigrants influence attitudes toward immigration levels. Clearly there is a problem of circularity here. Results were reported here because the author based their research on group threat theory. 7 In 2000, it was estimated that roughly 76.5% of all immigrants in the U.S. immigrated from Latin America and Asia (U.S. Census Bureau 2000b), which has increased to 80.6% in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

36

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Although there are countless definitions of racism, all are common in that racism is conceptualized as a means to justify the privileged status of one group over another. In more specific terms, racism is used as a means for white Americans to justify their privileged status in U.S. society over minorities. The various definitions of racism diverge from one another in how each conceptualizes white privilege and minority disadvantage. Historically, white privilege and minority disadvantage had been conceptualized as the systematic oppression of minorities on the basis of their alleged biological inferiority. In other words, the disadvantaged status of groups such as blacks was argued to be the result of their inherent inferiority. Racism was therefore characterized as encompassing overt bigotry, demands for strict segregation, advocacy for government mandated discrimination, and adherence to the belief that whites are superior to blacks (Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith 1997). However, the meaning of race and the subsequent conceptualization and expression of racism has changed over time (Omi and Winant 1994). Although racism is still used to justify white privilege and minority disadvantage, the manner in which it performs this purpose in the contemporary period is different. Bonilla-Silva (1996) argued that the predominant racial ideology today is “color blind racism” with a broad based societal wide theme/perception that racism is a thing of the past and the disadvantaged position of blacks is the result of blacks themselves. This ideology enables whites to avoid taking the blame for the disadvantaged position of blacks while at the same time allowing themselves to maintain their privileged status. The significance of racism in shaping attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy and the manner in which racism has shifted over time is detailed below.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Significance of Racism Race has played a distinguished role in shaping attitudes toward immigrants and immigration historically (Schaefer 1993; Feagin 1997; Jaret 1999). This can particularly be exemplified in how race had historically been a major basis for membership into the United States. In 1790, requirements for naturalization in the United States were first

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Frameworks

37

put into law. By definition, the 1790 law made naturalization exclusive to “free white persons”, thereby excluding all “non-whites”, servants, slaves, and most women (Immigration and Naturalization Service 2002). The term “free white persons” was a descriptive term that came to be judicially interpreted to imply a racial, rather than color test, and to signify members of the Caucasian race (Ozawa vs. US, 1922), which in itself was intended to mean European peoples (US vs. Thind, 1923). Therefore, only certain immigrants, namely European immigrants, had been extended the rights of citizenship to the U.S. It wasn’t until 1952 that restrictions to naturalization based on race would be completely removed. Although this particular example concerns the role of the state, such exclusionary naturalization laws reflect the demeanor of the public at large toward “non-white” immigrants. In fact, historically, public attitudes have been even more exclusionary toward immigrants than the state, which can be ascertained from the insurmountable public pressure put on the state to pass blatantly racist exclusionary legislation such as: the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, 1921 National Origins Quotas, and the 1952 McCarren-Walter Act (“Operation Wetback”). Also, the countless number of hate crimes committed against immigrants on the basis of their race and ethnicity is further evidence of the important role that racism and prejudice had historically played (Feagin 2000). In reference to the contemporary era, Bendersky (1995) argued anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes continue to be predominately shaped by racism and prejudice directed toward “nonwhite” immigrants. Tatalovich (1995) and Piatt (1990) argued that the large influx of non-Anglo, non-English speaking immigrants from Asia and Latin America has been the major source of America’s anxiety and opposition to immigration. However, the manner in which prejudice and racism drives today’s anti-immigrant fervor, is in many ways different than the way it had historically. This is primarily because racism against non-white groups has taken on a more subtle form today, whereas historically it was more blatant. As a result, even though today’s backlash against immigrants is not as overtly racist as it once was, it doesn’t mean that racism is less of a factor today than it was historically.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

38

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

The shift away from blatant racism first began around 1920, when it became increasingly unpopular to lobby Congress to exclude specific immigrant groups based on their racial characteristics (Bendersky 1995). Beforehand many groups and individuals had continuously lobbied Congress to exclude Southern and Eastern European immigrants on the basis of their alleged racial and cultural “inferiority”. However, when American Jewish organizations and liberal groups attacked the racist basis of such attempts and pointed to the country’s sense of democratic equality and fairness, restrictionists suddenly denied race was ever an issue, and denied they favored any particular type of immigrant group. As a result, the lobbying of Congress to exclude immigrants shifted from overt racist rhetoric aimed at specific immigrants to a more covert form that included a focus on the economic consequences of immigration. Yet, outside the Congressional arena, blatant racism toward non-white immigrants would continue to predominate (Bendersky 1995). The general decline in blatant racism wouldn’t take place until the post-Civil Rights era when expressions of racism against non-white groups became much more subtle. White privilege would become maintained in a new fashion. Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith (1997) offer insight on this transition as they argue that the decline in Jim Crow racism, which is characterized as over bigotry, demands for strict segregation, advocacy of government mandated discrimination, and adherence to the belief that whites are intellectually superior to blacks, resulted from the weakening of the Southern planter elite (who benefited most from Jim Crow racism), the rise of the black power movement, and the scientific debunking of the myth of biological inferiority of blacks. With the end of the Civil Rights Movement, it was clear that overt racism was no longer publicly acceptable and therefore could no longer be publicly used to justify the disadvantaged position of blacks in US society (McConahay 1986). Bobo and colleagues argued that a more subtle form of racism, which they termed “laissez faire” racism, rose to legitimate white privilege and persistent black oppression in a manner consistent with a modern, nationwide, post-industrial free labor economy and polity. Laissez faire racism is posed as an anti-racist ideology that concedes basic citizenship rights to blacks, yet projects the black-white socio-economic gap and the

Theoretical Frameworks

39

presence of racial segregation as an outcome of a free market, raceneutral state. Therefore, the disadvantaged position of blacks is viewed as a result of the freely taken actions of blacks themselves, not racial discrimination. The belief that society is egalitarian allows whites to defend their own privileged status and not take any responsibility for the disadvantaged positions of blacks. Laissez faire racism is therefore characterized as persistent negative stereotypes toward blacks, and the belief that blacks themselves are at fault for their disadvantaged position. Such beliefs are said to explain the present resistance toward policies aimed to ameliorate racist social conditions and institutions among white Americans. Bonilla-Silva and Foreman (2000) also contend that white privilege8 today is maintained in a more covert form, but instead argue that post-civil rights racial ideology should be called “color-blind” racism since white Americans use the notion of color blindness9 to defend the racial status quo. Several elements of color-blind racism are presented, which include: (1) abstract liberalism, which frames race in a liberal language where whites can appear non-racist, yet oppose equalizing or remedying the problem; (2) the use of cultural differences to explain the disadvantaged status of minorities; (3) avoidance of racist language and direct racial references in explaining racially based issues (instead indirect, subtle and racially coded words are used to talk about racial matters); (4) normalization of events or actions that are racist, thereby limiting what is believed to be racist; (5) minimization of racism and argument that racism isn’t significant anymore; (6) invoking of the free-market ideology to justify racial inequality; (7) use of semantic moves to justify why one is not racist. It is important to note, that while racism directed toward blacks, Hispanics, and Asians is unique to each group in some ways (see Bobo and Massagli 2001), in other ways racism directed at each group is

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

8

Bonilla-Silva (1996) contends this includes privileges in occupations, labor market, politics, social status, psychological wage, and the ability to draw boundaries between itself and others. 9 By contending that society is race-neutral, whites avoid taking blame for the disadvantage position of minorities and instead minorities themselves are blamed.

40

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

quite similar (see Burns and Gimpel 2000). Feagin (2000) argues that various forms of racist oppression have often drawn heavily on the white supremacist framework created for blacks, which explains why most forms of white racist attitudes and practices directed against other non-white groups reproduce or reinforce each other. In sum, by recognizing that racism is expressed in a more subtle manner today, we are better able to understand the role of racism in today’s anti-immigrant movement. The view that minorities are culturally inferior and that they have made little societal contribution reflects the subtle nature of today’s racist ideology and I expect individuals holding such views to perceive immigrants more negatively and want immigration restricted. Moreover, I expect social aversion from minorities to also play a role with preferences for homogenous families and neighborhoods reflective of heightened levels of racism.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Importance of Racism: Evidence From Past Research In terms of attitudes toward immigration, recent studies show racism toward Latinos explains heightened levels of support for immigration restrictions (Hood and Morris 1997; Pantoja 2006; Ayers et al. 2009). Moreover, a number of studies show both racism toward Latinos and African Americans explains restrictionist sentiment (Burns and Gimpel 2000; Citrin et al. 2001). Similarly, Houvouras (2001) found Americans’ negative stereotypes of Latinos correspond with heightened desires to cut bilingual education. In Canada, Palmer (1996) found Canadians expressed higher levels of support for immigration restrictions for non-white, rather than white immigration, thereby suggesting the underlying factor may be threat from minorities instead of immigrants. Similarly in the U.S., Americans are reportedly more likely to want immigration from Asia and Latin America restricted rather than immigration from Europe (Citrin et al. 1994). In a parallel fashion, Lapinski et al. (1997) showed that nonwhite immigrants are regarded less favorably than white European immigrants among Americans. Similarly, further survey evidence showed Americans view immigrants before 1880 (who were predominately Northern and Western Europeans) in a positive light, while negatively viewing today’s immigrants (Simon 1993; Simon and Lynch 1999). Racism is

Theoretical Frameworks

41

also suggested to have played a role in support for Proposition 187 in California with stronger support for Proposition 187 when the target group was illegal Mexican immigrants than when the target group was illegal Canadian immigrants (Lee and Ottati 2002). In the context of Europe, higher levels of racism are found to correspond with heightened desires to: restrict immigrant rights, make naturalization more difficult, and favor sending back all Asians (even the second generation) (Pettigrew 1998). Although the evidence I just provided supports the hypothesis that racism shapes support for immigration restrictions, not all evidence supports this link. It has been found that racism toward minorities in general and toward Asians in particular, lack any influential effects on restrictionism (Hood and Morris 1997; Simcox 1997). Moreover, Wilson (2001) found that anti-immigrant stereotypes did not predict attitudes toward legal immigration levels, while Hovey et al. (2000) demonstrated that respondents were not more supportive of Proposition 187 when the target group was illegal Mexican immigrants than when the target group was illegal Canadian immigrants.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SELF-INTEREST Probably the most familiar explanation for intergroup hostility stems from the simple self-interest model. In short this straightforward, “common sense” theory states that intergroup hostility originates from an underlying clash over material interests (Kluegel and Smith 1986). The focus of this theory is on individual-level vulnerability and how individuals “best interests” shape their intergroup relations. Emphasis is placed on differential attitudes between individuals most likely to compete or be displaced by members of out-groups and those least likely to compete with out-group members (Bobo and Hutchings 1996). The premise of this theory rests on the assumption that it is an individual’s self-interest that leads in-group members to form hostilities toward an out-group followed by attempts to remove the out-group in order to secure one’s status. Unlike group threat theory that argues that the foundation of intergroup hostilities is due to threat at the group level, this theory argues that the unit of analysis should be at the individual level. Applying self-interest theory to Americans’ intergroup

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

42

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

relations with immigrants in the United States, it is argued that nativeborn Americans who compete with today’s immigrants in the economy are those who are most likely to develop hostilities toward immigrants and want immigration restricted in order to eliminate competition from immigrants. Therefore, I expect native-born workers who are located in occupations and income brackets in which immigrants are concentrated, will likely have higher levels of resentment toward immigrants and desires to want immigration restricted in order to eliminate competition. The actual history of intergroup relations between native-born Americans and immigrants provides exceptionally strong support for the self-interest model. Labor historians argue that conflict between native-born and immigrant workers was rooted in competition for jobs, particular those that were low-skilled as most immigrants had traditionally entered low-skilled occupations (Cummings and Lambert 1998). Due to their actual competition with immigrants, unskilled, native-born, blue collar workers were the most active anti-immigration agitators historically. It was blue-collar American workers who developed political parties and endorsed legislation aimed at curbing immigration and restricting immigrant rights. Most labor unions were vehemently against immigration and much of the violence directed at immigrants was perpetuated by working-class native-born workers. In sum, it was American workers and labor unions that had led the efforts that resulted in the passing of very important restrictive immigration legislation such as the 1882 Chinese Immigration Act and the 1921 and 1924 National Origins Quotas. Theory of self-interest clearly overlaps considerably with theories of social structure and group threat. All three theories at least partially focus on intergroup competition as a factor in shaping intergroup beliefs and attitudes. In this regard all three theories are complementary. Yet, self-interest theory departs from theories of social structure and group threat in that its focus is on competition at the individual level and primarily on economic competition. It is therefore not structural in nature, nor does it deal with perceptions of group competition.

CHAPTER 3

Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, I present the theoretical model used to approach the current study of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. I discuss the causal order of theoretical factors detailed in the previous chapter. The theoretical model presented here will be drawn upon to construct a comprehensive sequence of analytical models in Chapters five and six. After organizing the causal order of theoretical factors, I refer to prior research to illustrate the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of each theoretical factor with the purpose of adding insight and understanding to what I outline and undertake in the data and methods chapter that follows in Chapter four.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CAUSAL ORDER In Figure 3.1, I present the theoretical model used to analyze Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Prior research is drawn upon to substantiate the causal order outlined. Overall, the theoretical process of attitudinal formation toward immigrants and immigration can be thought to start with objective factors (e.g. self-interest, social structure) that have direct effects on the 43

(Macro Level)

Social Structure

(Micro Level)

Self-Interest

Figure 3.1 Theoretical Model

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

( Micro Level)

(Micro Level)

Prejudice

Group Threat

Immigrant Attitudes

Immigration Policy

Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research

45

outcome variables as well as indirect effects channeled through intervening social psychological factors (e.g. perceived group threat and racism). The constructed theoretical model flows in this manner following the causal sequence argued by Esses (1998, 2001) that “actual” conditions influence social-psychological processes (e.g. actual threat predicts perceived threat). The theoretical model specifies that social structure and self-interest are correlated without a causal direction between them. Correlation between both factors is due to historical and contemporary forces where the socio-economic standing of residents of local areas and the opportunities of local areas mutually reinforce one another. Both objective factors (social structure and selfinterest) are argued to impact the social psychological dynamics of “perceived group threat” and “racism”. However, perceived group threat is presented as having a causal effect on racism, which is established from the broader literature on group threat and its purported causal link on racial attitudes and policy related views (see Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Quillian 1996). The presented theoretical sequence corresponds with a series of models in the analyses chapters.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE Social structure has predominately been conceptualized in accordance with Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure. Blau conceptualizes social structure as a “multidimensional space of different social positions among which a population is distributed (Blau 1977: 4).” Therefore, social positions at a given geographic level reflect this conceptualization of social structure. In a study of intermarriage, Blau (1994) tests his theory of social structure using indices that capture its main themes of heterogeneity, inequality, and intersection. The first, heterogeneity, refers to people’s distribution among different groups with distinct boundaries, yet without an inherent rank order (e.g. a city’s religious diversity). The second, inequality, refers to a population’s unevenness in the distribution of resources or status (e.g. uneven distribution of wealth). The third, intersection, refers to the degree of correlation between “heterogeneity” and “inequality” (e.g. intersection between race and income). Blau (1994) uses an index of

46

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

diversification10 with indicators of race, national origin, birth region, industry, major occupation, and detailed occupation as measures of heterogeneity. Yet, Blau and Schwartz (1984) also demonstrate that heterogeneity can be captured with population proportions (e.g. percent Latino). A Gini coefficient index11 is used with indicators of education, SES, and earnings as measures of inequality. Lastly, Blau (1994) takes one minus the mean of the correlations for dimensions of race, nativity, birth region, industry, major occupation, and education as a measure of intersection. Yet, Blau and Schwartz (1984) take the log of the difference in socioeconomic index values between whites and nonwhites. Overall, Blau confirms his theory of social structure with a number of measures and tests. Closely following Blau’s measurement of social structure, McVeigh (2006) elaborately tests the effects of social structure in his monumental criminological investigation of crime and social activism. Drawing extensively from Blau, McVeigh implements several measures for two of Blau’s three forms of social structure: heterogeneity and inequality. For measures of heterogeneity, McVeigh introduces indices of racial/ethnic and religious heterogeneity using the diversity index. In addition, McVeigh introduces measures of population density, foreign born population composition, and region as additional measures of heterogeneity. The Gini coefficient is employed with indicators of income and education to construct measures of inequality. Overall, McVeigh finds social structure to strongly predict rates of crime and activism. Higher rates of heterogeneity and inequality are strongly associated with increased levels of crime and activism.

10

D = 1 − ∑ pi2 where pi is the number of persons in a category

11

Gini =

∑ ∑ X −X 2N ∑ X i

i

j

i

j

where X is any resource or status measure

i

(e.g. income); i is the ith individual; j is the jth individual; N is the number of persons in the population.

Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research

47

Utilizing Blau’s theory, several studies have implemented measures of social structure, yet in a curtailed fashion to correspond with their research interests. For example, in a study of marital dissolution, South, Trent, and Shen (2001) operationalize structural determinants of marital dissolution as the “prevalence of spousal alternatives” with the argument that rates of divorce increase in direct relation to the number of spousal alternatives that are embedded in macro social structures. Measurement of the “prevalence of spousal alternatives” is captured with two variables: (1) the proportion of males to females in a geographic area, and (2) the sex ratio of respondent’s occupation. Investigating the influence of social structure on the likelihood that a person falls victim to a crime perpetuated by an out-group member, Sampson (1984) measures social structure with contextual variables concerning the relative in-group/out-group size and racial or age heterogeneity of a neighborhood. Similarly, Messner and South (1986) study the effects of social structure on interracial robbery. In accordance with macro-structural theory, Messner and South measure social structure with contextual variables of the relative size of the black population in a locale and the prevalence of racial segregation. Findings in both studies show social structure to be strong determinants of interracial criminal activity.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

GROUP THREAT Researchers have operationalized the concept of “threat” in a number of different manners largely due to the broadness of Blumer’s (1958) group threat theory. Likely the most common operationalization in past research is the utilization of “out-group” size as a measure of threat. Blalock (1967) argues that out-group size is accurately reflective of the degree that in-group members feel threatened by members of an outgroup. Two overarching rationales are used to substantiate his position. First, Blalock asserts that competition for scarce resources between members of the in-group and out-group heightens as the percent outgroup increases. Second, the group size of an out-group can increase the potential for political mobilization thereby resulting in a greater threat to the dominant group. A number of studies testing the relationship between relative out-group size and racism confirmed this

48

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

link showing that as the percent African American increased, the level of racism toward blacks among whites increased (Key 1949; Fossett and Kiecolt 1989; Quillian 1996; Taylor 1998; Dixon 2006). Other operationalizations of group threat theory largely focus on economic threat. For example, Quillian (1995, 1996) operationalizes group threat with a focus on localized economic conditions making the argument that residence in impoverished areas results in an increase in intergroup competition for scarce resources. Increased intergroup economic competition is thereby argued to result in fears that in-group members’ economic advantage will be damaged through competition with the out-group, thereby reflecting higher levels of threat toward out-group members. Although the bulk of the literature and prior research focuses on aggregate level measures of “group size” and “economic conditions” as approximations of threat, recent studies have made efforts to create measures of “actual threat”. For example, recent research has recognized a “cultural threat” dimension in their focus on the perceived threat that immigrants pose to the language dominance of native-born groups (Simcox 1997; Cummings and Lambert 1998; Chandler and Tsai 2001). Native-born groups are argued to be threatened by the wide usage of “foreign” languages because they resent their language and culture being marginalized by immigrants. Yet, Bobo and Hutchings (1996) likely present the most diverse and reliable operationalization of group threat theory claiming “threat” is a multidimensional concept, which includes perceptions of zero sum competition among in-group members with members of the out-group in the labor market, politics, housing, and economy. Findings confirm the group position model showing levels of threat vary by the overall position of the out-group relative to the in-group.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RACISM Prior researchers have operationalized and measured racism in a variety of different forms, which has inherently resulted in much discussion and debate concerning the faults and strengths of the various theories of

Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research

49

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

racism12. Researchers in the area of intergroup beliefs and attitudes have largely acknowledged the shift in racism from a more historically prevalent “blatant” form to the contemporary form that is largely subtle in nature (see Pettigrew 2000; Schuman et al. 1997). Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) illustrate an apparent continuum of racism from the least extreme forms to the most extreme forms. Starting with the least extreme form is “aversive racism” also known as “social distance”, which is essentially discrimination against minority groups in social interactions. Aversive racists are reluctant to interact or have contact with members of an out-group. Such themes have included whites’ views on intermarriage (Bonilla-Silva and Foreman 2000), and whites’ views on living in desegregated neighborhoods (Schuman et al. 1997). Hagendoorn and Kleinpenning (1991) argue social aversion to be the underlying sentiment that motivates avoidance of out-groups without the necessity of denying minority rights to equality. Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) point to ethnocentrism as the next step on the continuum of racism. The focus of ethnocentrism is on in-group members’ perceptions and feelings that their values and characteristics are superior to those of the out-group. Researchers in the area of race often point to this more subtle form of racism, focusing on majority group members’ beliefs of their cultural superiority over minorities and in turn use the apparent inferior cultural values of minority groups as the explanation for their subordinate status in society. This more subtle form of racism has often been measured using stereotype trait items, such as views concerning the work-ethic of blacks and other minorities (see Bobo and Kluegel 1997; Pettigrew 2000). Symbolic racism is considered the third step in the continuum of racism, which focuses on the majority group members’ beliefs that out-group members’ shouldn’t have the same rights as majority group members and they shouldn’t receive economic assistance. Finally, the extreme racists (or

12

For example, Sniderman and Tetlock (1986) questioned the operationalization of Sears and Kinder’s (1971) “symbolic racism”, which previously included attitudes toward Affirmative Action as part of their measure of racism. Later refinements of “symbolic racism” would exclude such items.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

50

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

biological racists) believe that out-group members shouldn’t have basic civil rights and that out-group members are biologically inferior. Actual research investigating attitudes toward immigrants and immigration have largely made poor attempts at operationalizing and testing the role of racism. Probably the biggest reason for this inadequacy has been due to a lack of overlap between scholars studying race and poverty in the United States and those studying immigration (see Waters 1999 for a discussion on this topic). As a result, racism is rarely given the attention that is due by researchers in the area. This shortfall is most exemplary by Chandler and Tsai (2001) who test for racism by comparing rates of support for immigration between Hispanics, Asians, and whites and note any differences in support between the groups as evidence of racism and any lack of difference as evidence for the absence of racism. Such a critical conclusion cannot be made with simple descriptive statistics. Conclusions also wouldn’t justifiably be made with the inclusion of race into the analytical model because of the simple fact that groups can vary on the topic for a number of different reasons. For example, Hispanic immigrants that have been residents of the U.S. for a number of years may have high levels of support for immigration restrictions because they resent competing with new immigrants in the labor market. On the other hand, native-born white Americans may support immigration restriction because they are racist. Both groups may have similarly high levels of anti-immigration attitudes, but do so for completely different reasons. In such a situation racism would mistakenly be excluded as an important factor. Therefore it is pivotal that actual measures of racism be implemented in the analysis in order to truly get a better understanding of the effects that racism may or may not have on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Prior research operationalizing and testing the effects of racism in the study of attitudes toward immigration have primarily relied upon measures of stereotype traits toward Asians, Hispanics, and sometimes Blacks. Results generally confirm that higher levels of negative stereotypes toward these minority groups coincides with higher levels of support for policies that would reduce immigration (Hood and Morris 1997; Burns and Gimpel 2000; Citrin et al. 2001), thereby supporting the assertion that racism does play a role in today’s anti-

Conceptualization and Measurement in Prior Research

51

immigrant backlash. Yet, there are many dimensions of racism, and solely focusing on the impact of just one dimension is rather limiting. Improvement in this area is clearly in order.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SELF-INTEREST The theory of self-interest has primarily been operationalized with a focus on “interests” and how interests shape attitudinal formation. In the study of intergroup beliefs and attitudes, measures of self-interest have primarily been created with a focus on “competition”. Conceptually, the more an individual competes with members of an out-group, the more likely the individual will have negative intergroup relations with members of an out-group. Therefore, measurement has concentrated on comparing attitudes between individuals more likely and less likely to compete with out-group members. Generally, individual level measures of competition have been approximated with measures of occupation and income with the assumption that in-group members with lower socio-economic status are more likely to compete with out-group members. Overall, research testing the role of selfinterest in the contemporary period provides partial support for the selfinterest theory. On the one hand, research shows that individuals who compete with immigrants are more likely to want immigration restricted (Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Palmer 1996; Haubert and Fussell 2006). On the other hand, Hood and Morris (1997) and Alvarez and Butterfield (2000) find no support for the self-interest model (e.g. no effect of income and occupation). Other research shows mixed results. For example, Citrin et al. (1997) find no relationship for income and personal economic well being on attitudes toward immigration levels, while at the same time finding higher levels of support for immigration restrictions among respondents in high threat blue collar occupations. Similarly, Simcox (1997) finds higher levels of support for immigration restrictions among respondents situated in occupations that are likely be taken by immigrants while at the same time respondents’ social class has no effect. Fetzer (2000) finds stronger support for Proposition 187 among respondents whose finances were in decline, yet, income has no effect.

52

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Since a large proportion of immigrants in the contemporary period are located within the lower socio-economic rungs of society (Passel 1994), lower SES native-born Americans are most likely to compete with immigrants in the labor force and therefore theoretically most likely to have hostile attitudes toward immigrants and immigration (see Calavita 1996; Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Johnson et al. 1997 for arguments on this point). Yet, many legal immigrants coming to the United States today are also very skilled (Jasso et al. 2000). Therefore, Americans in skilled occupations that immigrants are entering may potentially be hostile toward immigrants as well.

CHAPTER 4

Data and Methods

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In the previous chapter, my theoretical design and approach to the study of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration is illustrated and positioned in the overall literature on intergroup beliefs and attitudes. Here I provide details surrounding the data and methods used to test the theoretical model in six overall sections of this chapter. First, I specify the type of research design and approach utilized in the investigation at hand. Second, I detail the rationale for limiting the population of interest to native-born, non-Hispanic whites. Third, I identify the various data sources used in the present investigation with their unique advantages to the study of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Fourth, the statistical methods employed in the current study are detailed. Fifth, I comprehensively address the operationalization and measurement of the four major theories of social structure, group threat, racism, and self-interest. Lastly, the specification of the multilevel model employed to explain heightened levels of support for immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant attitudes is provided.

53

54

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

RESEARCH DESIGN The primary focus of my investigation concerns Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. I draw upon four major theories to compile measures and test numerous hypotheses regarding the apparent high level of hostility toward immigrants and immigration policy in the United States. Given the variety of different theoretical positions confronted, the research design requires a large sample in order to produce valid and robust results. Furthermore, a nationally representative sample that accurately reflects the population of the United States and their sentiment concerning immigrants and immigration policy is essential. The research design most advantageous to achieve these objectives is a survey design. Here I rely primarily on the 2000 General Social Survey, a large crosssectional nationally representative survey of the United States. In using a single cross-sectional design rather than a longitudinal design there are some important limitations to note. First, trends in respondents’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration over time cannot be documented. However, the focus of this investigation is on attitudes in the contemporary period. Second, the causal order between various concepts cannot be inferred by a cross-sectional design as time ordering is not an aid available to determine causal sequence. Instead, I deduce causal order from theory.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SAMPLE POPULATION My research specifically focuses on the attitudes of native-born, nonHispanic white Americans. There are several reasons I take this approach. First, I choose to exclude foreign-born respondents because my research centers on “Americans’” attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Since immigrants are the “out-group”, their inclusion is not feasible. Moreover, prior research shows a distinction in anti-immigrant attitudes between native-born Americans and immigrants (Haubert and Fussell 2006). Since the number of foreignborn respondents is relatively small, their exclusion does not jeopardize the robustness of results. Second, I expect racial and ethnic differences to exist with regard to public opinion on immigration. For example, I

Data and Methods

55

expect a cultural affinity to exist for many residents of Latino and Asian ancestry when it comes to issues surrounding immigration since most immigrants in the contemporary era come from Latin America and Asia. Moreover, prior research supports this expectation (see Rosales et al. 2001). Third, social structural circumstances are likely to vary quite substantially across racial and ethnic groups. For example, segregation levels between white Americans and immigrants will differ from segregation levels between African Americans and immigrants. It is therefore necessary to disaggregate by race and ethnicity in order to eliminate such confounding effects. However, adequate sample size becomes an issue when disaggregating by race and ethnicity. Only the non-Hispanic white sub-sample is sufficiently large enough to conduct a multilevel analysis assessing the impact of social structure on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

DATA I rely primarily on the 2000 General Social Survey (GSS) (Davis et al., 2003), a large cross-sectional nationally representative survey. The 2000 GSS is uniquely suited for the study of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in many ways. First, it includes an exceptional array of multiple questions that focus broadly on public opinion with regard to immigrants and current immigration policy. Second, respondents in the survey are linked to one of a 100 different sampling areas (“local areas”) across the United States, a feature that is rarely available for attitudinal data. Using Census data for the same year that the survey was administered, I create measures of social structure for each “local area”. Census data comes from the 2000 Census Summary Files 1, 3, and 4 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2002, 2003). Third, the survey includes a variety of items that reflect various dimensions of racism, group threat, and self-interest. Lastly, due to the nationally representative nature of the survey, results will accurately reflect contemporary American views toward immigrants and immigration policy. Together, these features of the 2000 GSS provide an exceptional basis to examine public opinion on immigration and assess my theoretical framework. The survey itself was conducted during February, March, and April of the year 2000 with a respectable

56

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

response rate of 70%. The General Social Survey is a national probability sample of 2,817 English-speaking Americans aged 18 years or over, living in non-institutional arrangements. The GSS is a survey conducted every two years with special topical modules that address timely issues. Basic demographic information (e.g. age, education, gender, etc.) is asked of all respondents. However, due to the large number of attitudinal items administered in the survey, a split-ballot system is utilized in order to shorten the time it takes for the average person to complete the survey. Under the split-ballot system roughly half of respondents were asked one set of attitudinal questions (Version A), while the remaining half of respondents were asked a second set of attitudinal questions (Version B). Version B of the 2000 survey included a “Multi-Ethnic United States” module from which many of the items used in this analysis were drawn. After removing foreignborn, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic others from the analysis, as well as the reduction in sample size due to the split-ballot system, sample sizes for the two indices were reduced to N=975 (attitudes toward immigrants) and N=943 (attitudes toward immigration policy). Respondents were included in an index if they answered at least two of three items for each respective index. Metropolitan Statistical Areas, clusters of non-metro counties, and pairs of counties make up what is termed here as “local”. Roughly two-thirds of these local areas are Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

METHODS A quantitative approach is employed to investigate Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using the 2000 General Social Survey. Several statistical techniques are administered to measure and comprehensively test the theoretical model presented in Chapter three. The use of factor analyses and Chronbach’s Alpha will be utilized to empirically confirm index reliability and validity. Multilevel modeling will be used to test the analytical model presented in Figure 4.1. The use of multilevel modeling is critical here because it enables hierarchical data to be analyzed appropriately (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). Unlike most techniques, multilevel modeling takes into account the multiple levels of the data structure, which in this case

Data and Methods

57

includes the individual level and the local structural level. Multilevel modeling provides the means to adequately address the hypotheses at hand as it provides a more complete picture of the way in which microlevel, macro-level, and cross-level factors affect the outcome variables. Details of the multilevel model are presented in the last section of this chapter. The analytical model is outlined in Figure 4.1. Arrows in the model reflect the theoretical causal order between constructs. However, arrows are also reflective of the successive stages of modeling. For example, in analytical models of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration conducted in subsequent chapters that follow, the first model includes measures of social structure, selfinterest, and controls, while the second model includes the addition of perceived group threat measures. Measures of racism are added in the final model. CONCEPTS, OPERATIONALIZATION, AND MEASUREMENT In this section I describe the operationalization and measurement of theoretical constructs developed in Chapter two. I begin with a discussion of the operationalization and measurement of the dependent variables “attitudes toward immigrants” and “attitudes immigration policy”. I follow with the operationalization and measurement of the theoretical constructs of social structure, group threat, racism, and selfinterest. Following this overall section, I provide the details of the multilevel model employed to analyze attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Dependent Variables: Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Americans’ contemporary intergroup relations with immigrants are examined in the form of “attitudes” toward immigrants and immigration policy. Although attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward immigration policy have notable differences, they also have notable similarities and are therefore not argued to be completely

Occupation Income

• • • • • •

Gender Age Education

Regional Structure Community St ructure Population Structure Economic Structure Residential St ructure Occupational Structure

(Macro Level)

Social Structure

• • •

(Micro Level)

Control Variables

• •

(Micro Level)

Self-Interest

Figure 4.1 Analytical Model (Using GSS 2000)

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

• • Cultural Demographic

Perceived Group Threat

(Micro Level)

Racism S ocial D istance S tereotypes Contribution

(Micro Level) • • •

Latin American immigration Asian immigration

• •

•

•

•

Americans lose jobs to immigrants Immigrants affect national unity Immigrants raise crime rates

Immigrant Attitudes Index

Immigration in general

•

Immigration Policy Index

Data and Methods

59

different topics, but are instead argued as two separate dimensions of the same construct: native-born and foreign-born intergroup relations. On the one hand, “attitudes toward immigrants” calls for an assessment of attitudes toward immigrants themselves, while “attitudes toward immigration policy” calls for an assessment of immigration policy. So the distinction between both analyses is simply that one deals with the views of people while the other deals with views of policy. Yet, a person’s view on immigration policy is likely heavily influenced by their views toward immigrants and in other cases a person’s views about immigrants may strongly be influenced by their views about immigration policy. As a result, distinguishable and complementary elements are present, thereby reflecting the necessitation to consider them as two dimensions of the same construct. Factor analyses will be used to empirically support this evaluation. An index is compiled for each dependent variable. Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy: Paralleling prior research, I operationalize “attitudes toward immigration policy” as public opinion pertaining to whether immigration levels should be decreased, left the same, or increased (see Citrin et al 1997; Hood and Morris 1997; Burns and Gimpel 2000; Alba et al. 2005; Ayers et al. 2009)13. Three separate items will be used to measure attitudes toward immigration policy. The first item, attitudes toward immigration levels “in general”, is similar to the item used in prior studies. “Do you think the number of immigrants from foreign countries who are permitted to come to the United States to live should be increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot?” The other two items used to

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

13

Although this operationalization focuses on “immigration levels”, immigration policy attitudes include other dimensions. This particular dimension is focused upon here because it has received the most attention in prior research and has also received a large amount of attention in the media. It is therefore determined to be the most important dimension to examine and is the focus here.

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

60

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

measure attitudes toward immigration policy are very similar in content, but simply refer to immigration from a specific world region (either Latin America or Asia) rather than immigration from “foreign countries”. Items include: “What about the number of immigrants from Latin America – should it be increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot?” The remaining item refers to “immigrants from Asia” instead of “immigrants from Latin America”, but otherwise has the same exact wording as the latter question. High scores indicate respondents’ preference for reduced immigration levels. To assess measurement error, Cronbach’s alpha was employed, which is a measure of scale reliability based on internal consistency. Internal consistency signifies the extent that individual items comprising a set of items (in an index) correlate with each of the other index items and the total set of items (Hatcher 1994). Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0 to 1, with one being the highest level of scale reliability. The rule of thumb is that a scale is reliable if it has a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 or better (Nunnally 1978). Cronbach’s Alpha results (see Table 4.1) indicate the three items comprise a reliable measure of “attitudes toward immigration policy”, with a very high alpha value of 0.94. A mean summed index is created for these three items in which respondents who answered at least two of the three questions are given a value equal to the mean of their responses. This measure of “attitudes toward immigration policy” is a considerable improvement over measurement of the construct in previous research, which employed just a single item as a measure of the construct. The sole item used in past research is very similar to the first item above concerning attitudes toward immigration levels “in general”. Although this item may validly measure the intended concept, two major problems arise from using just one indicator as a measure of attitudes toward immigration policy. Both problems stem from the imperfect correspondence between an indicator and a construct (Singleton and Straits 1999). First, a single item rarely captures all the meaning of a given construct. In this case a single item could only capture a fraction of attitudes toward immigration levels, and is therefore lacking content validity as the item fails to represent multiple facets of the concept, such as variation in attitudes toward immigration from different regions of the world.

3.64 2.82 3.43 2.93 2.92 4.05

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

0.90 0.72 0.79 0.85 0.63 0.93

0.94 0.78 0.76 0.83 0.90 0.68

S.D. Alpha 0.56** 0.12** 0.32** 0.35** 0.18**

1

0.14** 0.35** 0.37** 0.22**

2

0.19** 0.19** 0.42**

3

0.29** 0.30**

4

0.25**

5

Sample size for the computation of Cronbach’s Alpha for each numbered Index is as follows: (1) 925; (2) 932; (3) 814; (4) 916; (5) 808; (6) 919 Note (1): Imputation of missing values was not performed. Cronbach’s alpha is only conducted for respondents who answered each item in the index. As a result, sample sizes vary among indices shown. Note (2): Correlation matrix is based from mean summed indices. The computation of each mean summed index allowed those who answered at least half the items for each index to have a value. Only respondents who had a value for one of the dependent variables (Indices 1 and 2 above) are included in this correlation matrix.

** p < 0.001

Immig Policy Attitudes Immigrant Attitudes Stereotypes Social Distance Contribution Black Stereotypes

Mean

Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, And Chronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Estimates For All Indices With Three Or More Variables (Native-Born, Non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks)

Variables

Table 4.1

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

62

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

Second, an indicator often contains errors of classification. For example, in this case a person may want immigration levels to be left the same, but may want specific immigrant groups kept out. Such a person may appear to be neutral on attitudes toward immigration levels when in fact they desire some restrictions. As a result, past studies are limited in their contribution with the use of this single-item. Here, I address this deficiency with the use of multiple items. Attitudes Toward Immigrants: The second dimension of Americans’ intergroup relations with immigrants, Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants, has been relatively understudied in the U.S. context14. As a result, it difficult to refer to the literature and gain an understanding about the potential factors that shape public opinion on this very important topic. I address this shortfall by modeling attitudes toward immigrants separately from other related topics. “Attitudes toward immigrants” is operationalized here as attitudes toward the effect immigrants have on crime rates, job loss, and national unity in the United States. The three items used as measures ask respondents “What do you think will happen as a result of more immigrants coming to this country? Is each of the possible results very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not likely at all? (a) Higher crime rates?, (b) People born in the U.S. losing their jobs?, (c) Making it harder to keep the country united?” These items tap common assertions of immigrant characteristics and are therefore argued to be strong theoretical measures of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants. Moreover, items are worded in a manner that better captures views of immigrants. Items directly inquiring about views toward immigrants would probably be hampered by issues of social desirability. Here questions are addressed in such a way that is more

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

14

Chandler and Tsai (2001) combined items reflecting attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward immigration levels into one index. Neville (2000) included an item reflecting attitudes toward immigrants in her Color Blind Racism Scale. Recent research has made strides in the investigation of attitudes toward immigrants (see Alba et al. 2005; Haubert and Fussell 2006; Berg 2009).

Data and Methods

63

subtle thereby prompting a more accurate assessment of Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants. In addition, it is important to note that although there is not a specification between legal and undocumented immigrants, people are likely thinking15 about undocumented immigrants as well as documented immigrants when questioned about the three items. An assessment of scale reliability (α = 0.78) empirically confirmed their theoretical cohesiveness. A mean summed index was formed by averaging scores among respondents who answered at least two of the three items. High index score indicate an elevated level of negative attitudes toward immigrants. Factor Analysis: Although attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward immigration policy have notable differences, they also have notable similarities and are therefore argued to be two separate dimensions of the same underlying construct: native-born and foreign-born intergroup relations. Factor analysis is used to statistically support this argument by testing the hypotheses that both sets of items are in fact different from one another (thereby constituting separate dimensions), but at the same time similar (thereby constituting dimensions of the same construct) (Kim & Mueller 1978a, 1978b). The one factor model shown in the “confirmatory model fitting results” portion of Table 4.2 assumes that all 6 items load on a single dimension, “generalized attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy”, which in effect is a counter-hypothesis to what is proposed above (H0: two dimensions). However, results show that this one factor model is a very poor fit to the data as chi-square is more than double the degrees of freedom (chisquare = 385 with 9 degrees of freedom), the AGFI is well below 0.9

Copyright © 2010. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

15

The public incorrectly believes that undocumented immigrants constitute 2/3 of all immigrants that enter the US annually (Feagin 1997). In reality in comparing estimates of undocumented immigrants (Rivera-Batiz 2000) to those of legal immigrants (Immigration and Naturalization Service 2000), undocumented immigrants only make up about a quarter of all immigrants that enter the United States every year.

64

American Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy

(AGFI=0.667), and the model is statistically significant (P