Search

In current American political discourse, individuals tend to mistakenly conflate being an undocumented immigrant with being Latinx. This conflation puts Latinxs who are legal residents or citizens (Latinx‐Americans) at risk of being negatively impacted by policies intended to deter undocumented immigrants. We examine whether being the target of anti‐immigration policies would lead Latinx‐Americans to politically engage on behalf of undocumented immigrants. Study 1 found that when Latinx‐Americans were led to believe that what happens to undocumented immigrants will affect them personally (linked fate), those who were primed with greater conflation of the two groups expressed more positive attitudes toward undocumented immigrants and other Latinxs. Study 2 found that this pattern of effects extended to the willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of undocumented immigrants. Study 2 also examined the role of emotions (anger and fear) in mediating the relationship between the conflation of Latinxs with undocumented immigrants and collective action intentions. Together, the findings shed light on how current immigration policies affect relations among key subgroups within the Latinx community and the conditions under which Latinx‐Americans will mobilize on behalf of undocumented immigrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National discourse about immigration in the United States has become increasingly unwelcoming. In two studies, we examine whether regional‐level (state) information about welcoming (vs. unwelcoming) immigrant policies in the context of either stable or increasing rate of immigration can influence intergroup relations in receiving communities. Among Whites (Study 1), welcoming policy proposals elicited more positive attitudes toward immigrants generally and toward Latinos, the ethnic group most closely associated with immigration in the United States, but only when rate of immigration is constant. In contrast, among Latinos (Study 2), an unwelcoming reception led to more positive attitudes toward immigrants (legal and undocumented) but again only when rate of immigration is constant. Asians' attitudes (Study 2) toward immigrants were not affected by contextual information about immigration. Together, these findings suggest that local conditions can affect community members' attitudes toward immigrants and toward specific ethnic groups associated with immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing ethnic and racial diversity often fuels feelings of threat among ethnic-racial majorities (e.g., self-identified white Americans and European nationals). We contend that these threat perceptions depend on the policy context. Across four studies, we test whether more inclusive immigrant integration policies attenuate ethnic-racial majorities' threat reactions. Studies 1 to 3 (n = 469, 733, and 1745, respectively) used experimental methods with white American participants in the United States. Study 4 (n = 499,075) used secondary analysis of survey data comparing attitudes of nationals in 30 European countries and measured the impact of actual changes in diversity and policies over 10 years. Our results show that integration policies shape threat reactions even in those situations when increasing diversity could be seen as the most threatening: when narratives highlight the majority's impending minority position or when diversity suddenly increases. When policies are more inclusive toward immigrants, ethnic-racial majority participants report less threat (or no threat) in response to increasing diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past 15 years, the adoption of subnational immigration policies in the United States, such as those established by individual states, has gone from nearly zero to over 300 per year. These include welcoming policies aimed at attracting and incorporating immigrants, as well as unwelcoming policies directed at denying immigrants access to public resources and services. Using data from a 2016 random digit-dialing telephone survey with an embedded experiment, we examine whether institutional support for policies that are either welcoming or hostile toward immigrants differentially shape Latinos' and whites' feelings of belonging in their state (Arizona/New Mexico, adjacent states with contrasting immigration policies). We randomly assigned individuals from the representative sample ( n = 1,903) of Latinos (US and foreign born) and whites (all US born) to consider policies that were either welcoming of or hostile toward immigrants. Across both states of residence, Latinos, especially those foreign born, regardless of citizenship, expressed more positive affect and greater belonging when primed with a welcoming (vs. hostile) policy. Demonstrating the importance of local norms, these patterns held among US-born whites, except among self-identified politically conservative whites, who showed more negative affect and lower levels of belonging in response to welcoming policies. Thus, welcoming immigration policies, supported by institutional authorities, can create a sense of belonging not only among newcomers that is vital to successful integration but also among a large segment of the population that is not a direct beneficiary of such policies-US-born whites., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.