604640
research-article2015
SCUXXX10.1177/2329496515604640Social CurrentsLippard
Article
Playing the “Immigrant
Card”: Reflections of
Color-blind Rhetoric within
Southern Attitudes on
Immigration
Social Currents
1­–19
© The Southern Sociological Society 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329496515604640
scu.sagepub.com
Cameron D. Lippard1
Abstract
Polls measuring attitudes on immigration suggest that Americans generally agree that immigration
is good for the United States. However, these same polls suggest that Americans support
strict border enforcement and racial profiling to curtail illegal immigration. These same mixed
responses about immigration also characterize southern views, particularly in new immigrant
destinations. Drawing on 180 in-depth interviews from southern college students, this article
uses color-blind racism and racist nativism theories to examine immigration rhetoric. Results
suggest that respondents fear immigrants “taking over,” racializing the immigration debate to only
focus on Mexican immigrants. They also conflate their views of blacks and Mexican immigrants,
suggesting these two groups are essentially the same. However, they deflect being blatantly
racist nativist by camouflaging their comments with color-blind frames. Many note that the
mistreatment of immigrants is “fair” in comparison with their immigrant ancestors, and because
immigrants are here “illegally.” These findings advance color-blind rhetoric research beyond
the black-white dichotomy by focusing on non-white immigrants. It also demonstrates that
researchers should consider how at least respondents in new southern immigrant destinations
intertwine various color-blind and racist nativist devices to shape immigration attitudes.
Keywords
nativism, racism, immigration, color-blind racism
Introduction
In a 2013 NBC News poll, 54 percent of
Americans suggested that immigration “adds
to [American] character and strengthens the
United States because it brings diversity, new
workers, and new creative talent to this
country” (Polling Report 2014). However,
Americans also express anti-immigrant positions. Over 60 percent wanted to decrease the
number of legal or documented immigrants
from entering the country, deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States
currently, and intensify security on the U.S.Mexican border (Polling Report 2014). These
polls also suggested that Americans do not
want any undocumented immigrants receiving
1
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Cameron D. Lippard, Department of Sociology, 209
Chapell Wilson Hall, Appalachian State University, ,
Boone, NC 28608, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
2
Social Currents
publicly funded services and the government
should drastically reduce the number of underskilled and under-educated immigrants entering the country.
These anti-immigrant views have also been
documented in new immigrant destinations
across the American South. Researchers have
found that native-born white and black southerners have adverse reactions to the rapid
influx of immigrants to their communities,
noting serious fears of Latino immigrants
adversely impacting the economy, public
resources, and southern culture (Lippard and
Gallagher 2011; Marrow 2011; Neal and
Bohon 2003; O’Neil and Tienda 2010).
Moreover, these views seem to be shared
equally across different sociodemographic
characters including economic and educational
differences.
National polls and recent research in the
American South suggest a peculiar divergence
in attitudes on immigration often noted in
racial attitudes research in the United States.
Since the 1960s, scholars have found that
American racial attitudes have shifted from
being blatantly racist to agreeing that racism is
wrong. However, in qualitative studies,
Americans often argue that race does not matter in explaining continuing racial inequality
and blame any noticeable racial minority group
deficiencies on inadequate individual economic, social, or human capital levels (BonillaSilva 2014). Although this deployment of
“color-blind” rhetoric often makes the discussion about racial and ethnic inequality steer
away from race or racism as central issues,
respondents’ answers continue to reify and
congeal white superiority and nonwhite
inferiority.
Scholars contend that the same is true about
American attitudes toward immigration.
Galindo and Vigil (2006) and Lippard (2011)
suggested that the discourse on immigration in
the twenty-first century has become a game of
rhetorical slight-of-hand. On one hand, the discussion about immigration in the media, government, and public polls has suggested that
the immigration debate was more about nonnativist concerns, including national security,
stopping drug cartels, or avoiding economic
ruin (Bloch 2013; Chavez 2008). On the other
hand, the immigration debate is racialized, targeting undocumented and documented
Mexican immigrants as the source of the
“immigration problem” (Dietrich 2011).
Merging the theoretical arguments of racist
nativism and color-blind racism, this study
provides an exploration of how individuals living in the South explained their views of immigration to the United States. Using 180 in-depth
interviews from mostly-white college students
living in the South, the article demonstrates
how respondents explained their views of
immigration by using color-blind rhetoric to
avoid sounding overtly racist or nativist.
Respondents racialized the discussion by only
talking about Mexican immigrants and leveling racial discrimination and racism toward
immigrants as akin to their “anything but race”
reflections of black struggles. To date, most
research on color-blind rhetoric has focused on
white racial attitudes toward blacks. This study
goes beyond the black-white dichotomy and
shows how color-blind rhetoric shapes the discourse on immigration in everyday
conversations.
Theoretical Explanations
Scholars primarily frame American antiimmigrant sentiment as being rooted in an
immigrant threat narrative. Higham (1955,
1999) suggested that real or perceived challenges to natives’ sense of group position based
on economic, political, or cultural reasons
bring about anti-immigrant sentiments. Recent
scholarship has also suggested that these fears
are rooted in a racialized context, focusing on
nonwhite immigrants (Chavez 2008; Higham
1999; Jaret 1999; Navarro 2009).
Scholars have labeled these fears today as
“racist nativism.” As defined by Huber et al.
(2008:43), racist nativism is “the assigning of
values to real or imagined differences, in order
to justify the superiority of the native, who is to
be perceived white, over that of the nonnative,
who is perceived to be People and Immigrants
of Color.” Agreeing with Omi and Winant’s
(2015) racial formation theory, Huber et al.
(2008) pointed out that racist nativism was yet
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
3
Lippard
another racial project in which white and
“native-born” Americans have rearticulated the
meanings of race and racism to support white
and native-born superiority. Huber et al.
(2008:43) recognized that there is a distinct link
between how Americans view what it means to
be white and “American,” noting that immigrant assimilation is about accepting white
European cultural values and beliefs. Therefore,
racist and nativist targets are very similar in that
they both look to people of color to oppress and
exploit, often sustaining white dominance. For
example, Lu and Nicholson-Crotty (2010)
found that white Americans’ use of Hispanic
stereotypes increased their anti-immigrant sentiments. Scholars have also noted that racial
prejudice increases support of restrictive immigration policies and services (Ayers et al. 2009;
Burns and Gimpel 2000; Citrin et al. 1997).
Beyond white sentiments, blacks have also
expressed anti-immigrant sentiment when discussing job opportunities and Hispanic immigrant impact on strained public resources (i.e.,
public schools) (McClain 2006).
Sánchez (1997) noted three different forms of
anti-immigrant sentiment based on racist nativism. The first form conveyed an “extreme apathy
towards Non-English languages” and a fear that
this linguistic difference will undermine
American culture (Sánchez 1997:1020). A second form highlighted how new immigrant
minorities receive special privileges because they
are racialized minorities in a country that provides racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action)
to racial minorities. For example, Saad (2010)
reported that 64 percent of Americans feel sympathetic toward illegal immigrants, particularly
those who wanted to reunite with family.
However, Saad also found that respondents did
not want immigrants to receive any public
resources unless they paid taxes or were legally
in the country. The final sentiment expressed was
that racialized immigrants, both documented and
undocumented, drain all public resources (i.e.,
public education, and health care services), as
well as take away jobs that citizens need.
However, as Sánchez (1997) and Carter and
Lippard (2015) clarified, this particular nativist
view specifically identified Hispanic immigrants, particularly Mexicans, as the culprit for
this national crisis. Bloch (2013) found in an
analysis of online anti-immigrant Web site discussion threads that people overwhelmingly
view being an illegal immigrant, criminalminded, and Hispanic as one and the same. Even
Latino Americans viewed newly arriving Latino
immigrants as the main culprit of the “immigrant
problem” (Lopez and Gonzalez-Barrera 2013).
Overall, racist nativist ideology points out
threats to often white but also American cultural identities and resources, increasing antiimmigrant sentiment toward Mexican
immigration. However, as suggested by
Bonilla-Silva (2014) on color-blind racism,
what do people do to believe in a “post-race”
society when racial and ethnic inequality continues in the United States? Also, how do
recent conversations about immigration grapple with the United States as a “land of immigrants” but still condone anti-immigrant
policies and unfair treatment of particularly
nonwhite immigrants? While racist nativism
explains the fears, it cannot explain how individuals might avoid sounding racist or nativist
while engaged in the immmigration debate.
Color-blind Rhetoric: Analytical
Framing of Anti-immigrant Sentiment
One analytical way to capture the linguistic
artifices of hiding racist nativist rhetoric is to
look to recent explanations of American racial
attitudes. Since the 1960s, racial attitudes
research has demonstrated that American
views of race and racism are not the same as
before the Civil Rights Movement that supported institutional racism (Bobo, Kluegel,
and Smith 1997; Schuman et al. 1997). This
research also found that most Americans, and
particularly whites, do not express overt harsh
feelings or use brutal stereotypes and racial
epithets about nonwhites. While respondents
continually asserted that they “don’t see color,
just people,” support for any government
actions that furthered equality between groups
was limited (Bobo et al. 1997; Bonilla-Silva
2014; Feagin 2010).
Gallagher (2008:1) described that most
Americans delete race or racism as factors of
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
4
Social Currents
influence when discussing what shapes the
“socio-economic life chances of racial minorities.” Instead of blatant verbal attacks and racist rants, scholars have suggested that
Americans resort to a more “color-blind” rhetoric, denouncing race as the primary factor, but
still pointing out the individual and cultural
flaws of entire groups (Bonilla-Silva 2014;
Gallagher 2004). As Bonilla-Silva (2014:3)
explained, colorblindness is “racism lite,” and
this rhetoric has become evident in interviews
where respondents were allowed to fully
explain their views.
Bonilla-Silva (2014:102) offered an analytical framework for deconstructing how people
avoid sounding too racist, or nativist, in their
comments about racialized topics, including
immigration. First, he suggested that individuals used a variety of semantic wordplay. For
instance, he found that respondents avoided
using any direct racial language to explain
racial views, avoiding racial slurs (e.g., colored, nigger, spic) and stumbling over the most
appropriate term to use (e.g., African American
vs. black, Hispanic vs. Mexican). Scholars
examining the recent immigration debate
found that people continually used “Mexicans”
to denote immigration problems and used
“Hispanic,” “Latino,” or even “illegal immigrant” interchangeably to explain their views
of “Mexicans” (Bloch 2013; Chavez 2008;
Dietrich 2011).
Second, Bonilla-Silva (2014) identified that
respondents use semantic phrases, rhetorical
shields, or discursive frames to safely state
their views. This might include phrases like, “I
am not prejudiced, but . . .,” “Some of my best
friends are . . .,” or “I don’t know, I’m not
black . . .” to excuse their negative comments
about groups. Respondents also blamed or
called out nonwhites as racists as a rhetorical
shield. Bonilla-Silva (2014) suggested this is a
way for respondents to avoid being labeled
racist and feeling guilty for a racist past.
One of the more used color-blind frames
identified by Bonilla-Silva (2014) was
“abstract liberal” arguments, suggesting that
equal opportunity should be the ultimate goal
and no other factors, including race, should
impede it. For example, whites often argued
against affirmative action policies because
they would potentially hinder the success of
whites and unfairly advantage nonwhites
(Bonilla-Silva 2014; Feagin 2010). Ayers et al.
(2009) also found that while their respondents
supported maintaining current immigration
levels, they also rejected policies that would
assist immigrants in receiving additional assistance or amnesty.
Another frame deployed to discredit continued racism and discrimination is to suggest
that any differences between groups were the
result of inadequate or poor cultural values
within a particular group (Bonilla-Silva 2014).
Chavez (2008) argued that much of the discourse on immigration today “cloaks race talk”
by pointing out that Latino immigrants are culturally flawed in comparison with European
immigrants because they supposedly resist
assimilation. Bloch (2013) found that many
anti-immigrant Web discussions argued that
Mexican immigrants came from a culture that
condoned criminal behavior such as crossing
the border illegally and drunk driving.
A third frame used to discredit any racial or
ethnic differences is that there is a natural order
to stratification in that it “has always existed.”
Massey (2004) argued that many Americans
believed that all immigrants have to follow the
“implicit social contract” that required immediate assimilation, hard work, no criminal
activity, and not becoming a public burden.
Gallagher (2004) and Steinberg (2001) also
argued that whites often downplayed any discrimination blacks or immigrants faced as having to “pay their dues” to become a citizen, just
like their immigrant ancestors did in the past.
A final diminutive frame people have used
was suggesting that there are other factors
impeding racial minority success in America.
For instance, many people turned to explaining
the educational achievement gap between
blacks and whites in America as a result of
social class, school resources issues, or even
poor family values. Within the immigration
discussion, researchers found that many
Americans turn to dismissing race or racism as
a factor concerning immigration and that it
was really a question of “legality” (Bloch
2013; Chavez 2008; Dietrich 2011). Jaret
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
5
Lippard
(1999) pointed out early on that the two greatest differences in the discourse over immigration pre- and post-1965 were the question of
color and whether immigrants were documented or undocumented. Saad (2010) found
that respondents clearly supported steady levels of legal immigration but not illegal immigration, and only associated illegal immigration
with Mexican immigrants.
While theoretical arguments have suggested that most attitudes toward immigration
were predicated by perceived threat, this article explores how color-blind rhetoric camouflages these arguments about immigration in
the twenty-first century to seem more accepting and logical. I contend that while respondents continually suggested that race and
nativity did not matter, they still used rhetorical tricks to racialize and hide their racial prejudice and anti-immigrant views. I also show
that the respondents use color-blind diminutives to soften the hardships Mexican immigrants face due to racial discrimination in a
“post-race” America while propping up white,
native-born privilege.
Context Matters: Latino Immigration
to the American South
Before delving into the data, it is important to
point out the particular regional context in
relation to immigration for this study. First,
this study was conducted using respondents
from a regional public university located in the
American South. Second, over 85 percent of
these students grew up and are from three
southern states surrounding the university—
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia—with
the majority coming from communities in
North Carolina. These states were ranked as
some of the top “new immigrant destinations”
since 2000 in the United States (Massey 2008).
Research examining the rise of new immigrant destinations in the United States have
identified the American South as an important
destination for Latino immigrant populations
(Furuseth and Smith 2006; Lippard and
Gallagher 2011; Marrow 2011; Massey 2008;
Mohl 2003; Parrado and Kandel 2008; Winders
2009). These researchers also pointed out that
many southern states saw overwhelming
increases in the Latino populations from
almost none in 1990 to 300 to 500 percent
increases by 2010 (Lippard and Gallagher
2011; Massey 2008). For example, in some
North Carolina counties where almost the
entire population was white (95 percent or
higher) in 1990, by 2000, the U.S. Census
reported that almost one in five people identified as Hispanic/Latino (Lippard and Gallagher
2011). Much of this “hypergrowth” in Latino
populations in the South included first- and
second-generation
Mexican
immigrants
migrating for better employment opportunities
and to avoid issues of discrimination present in
their home countries or in the American West
(Massey 2008).
With this arrival of Latino immigrants,
researchers have identified growing racial tension and discrimination. Gill (2010) and
Marrow’s (2011) research on Mexican immigrant workers in North Carolina found that
many faced prejudice and discrimination on a
daily basis by native-born whites and blacks
due to their acceptance of jobs that were once
largely held by low-income blacks and whites,
leading to economic tensions between foreignand native-born laborers (Gill 2010; Marrow
2011; Parrado and Kandel, 2008). In a study of
North Carolina resident attitudes toward
Latino immigration, McClain (2006) found
that over 52 percent of black and white respondents felt that Latino immigrants were a problem in the state because they were taking jobs
and using up public services. Another recent
study of Mexican immigrants living in western
North Carolina found that Mexican immigrants reported moderate levels of blatant and
subtle acts of discrimination toward them in
almost every social setting (Lippard and Spann
2014).
The sudden growth of the Latino immigrant
population in the South has shaped the opinions of the respondents in this study in unique
ways. Particularly, the notions of threat may be
increased for native-born respondents dealing
with the influx of nonwhite immigrants to
places that have been largely white and black
for generations. This context may also shape
the ways in which “Southern” students view
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
6
Social Currents
immigration and how they deploy color-blind
rhetoric to seem less “Jim Crow,” as one
respondent stated, or overtly racist in their
comments.
Method
Data Collection
Data were collected through in-depth interviews asking college student respondents several questions about their views of race and
ethnic relations in present-day America.
Specific questions included, “Do you think
race or ethnicity have much to do with what
various groups face in the real world?” “Is racism dead in America?” and “Have you ever felt
discriminated against because of your race or
ethnicity?” For this study, the focus was on
answers concerning the respondents’ views on
the following questions: (1) What are your
views of immigration today in the United
States? (2) How do you think today’s immigrants will impact America? (3) What are some
social issues arising out of immigration today?
(4) What do you think should be done to
address the problems you see with immigration? Respondents also filled out close-ended
questionnaires identifying their age, race or
ethnicity, sex, education level, and academic
class rank.
All interviews were conducted as part of an
in-class assignment for two Research Methods
and two Race and Minority Relations courses
over four academic semesters by undergraduate students from 2010 to 2012. All students
received training by the author in conducting
in-depth interviews that included lectures,
reading materials, and role-play exercises to
practice interviewing skills. The university
Institutional Review Board approved this
research, and we ensured confidentiality to all
participants by not recording any identifying
information and giving each participant a
pseudonym.
Interviews were conducted over a four-week
period each semester, and each trained student
conducted up to 5 interviews, totaling 234
interviews. Interviews lasted from a range of 45
minutes to two hours. Students were instructed
to select white and nonwhite student friends
and acquaintances to interview. After receiving
consent, all interviews were digitally recorded
and students transcribed the interviews they
collected. Students excluded any personal
information mentioned in the interviews (i.e.,
home town names, names of specific organizations, friend/family names). Students also participated in research teams to assist one another
in ensuring accurate transcriptions.
Participants
The non-random sampling method for this
project produced 234 respondents who were
all undergraduate college students at a regional
public university (18,000+ students) in the
American South. Students were asked to collect purposeful sampling of at least three
whites and two nonwhites to interview to
match the overall campus race demographics,
which is two-thirds or more white. Student
interviewers were 82 percent white. For this
study, only 180 respondents’ interviews were
used because student interviewers did not ask
the questions on immigration or did not ask all
four questions (n = 32), or respondents did not
want to answer the immigration questions (n =
22).
Overall, 48 percent (n = 87) of respondents
were male, and 52 percent (n = 93) were
female. In terms of race, 89 percent (n = 160)
identified as white, about 7 percent (n = 12)
identified as black or African American, and
about 4 percent (n = 8) identified as other
groups including Asian, Native American,
Hispanic, and of a mixed racial background.
This is similar to the racial characteristics of
the university in which, in 2009, 90 percent of
the student population identified as white and
10 percent included a variety of racial and ethnic group identifications. The average age of
the respondents was 21.3, with a minimum age
of 18 and a maximum age of 42; however, only
three students were over the age of 25, making
the age differences in responses negligible.
These racial and ethnic percentages do not
match national or regional proportions of race
and ethnicity exactly. However, as mentioned
in the above discussion of context, this sample
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
7
Lippard
could offer some insight into how southerners
view the current state of immigration and their
perceptions of impact on the American South.
Moreover, relying on educated respondents
could assist in showing how educated critical
thought leads to creative cloaking of blatantly
racist discourse, which is a purposeful sampling technique deployed by other researchers
(e.g., Bonilla-Silva 2014).
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using qualitative techniques relying heavily on Maxwell (2005) and
Miles and Huberman’s (1994) notions of
“descriptive” and “pattern” coding. All
responses to the questions identified above
were open-coded by the author to note descriptive explanations of various attitudes toward
immigrants and immigration. Open coding
produced a number of concepts that were then
grouped under three general categories of attitudes and beliefs, behaviors, and personal
characteristics respondents associated with
immigrants and immigration. Further in-depth
analysis found thematic relationships or patterns across categories, noting any similarities
and differences in arguments about immigration across respondents. Responses were coded
independently by the author, and two student
research assistants coded to assess reliability
of the coding (95 percent confidence interval,
kappa = .810, p < .001).
Limitations
Having students interview and collect qualitative data has its advantages and disadvantages.
One advantage was that students interviewing
other students may have provided a more comfortable and nonthreatening atmosphere. The
possibility of good rapport between peers may
have also reduced social desirability effects
often seen when researchers conduct this type
of research.
Using student researchers also has its disadvantages. While extensive training was provided, students’ lack of experience may
negatively impact the collection of data. Some
students may have rushed the interviews and
not used enough probing questions to get more
in-depth responses. Student interviewers may
have also had nonverbal reactions or even
responses that prompted the respondents to
change their answers to avoid discussions
entirely.
Data collection methods were limited as
well. This study was based on a convenience
but purposeful sample of students taken from
one southern university. This sampling technique was a nonprobability method, limiting
generalizability to the entire population.
However, researchers have used this type of
sampling before to get at the more sensitive
discussions on race and racism in America
(Bonilla-Silva 2014; Gallagher 2004). Also,
in-depth interviews can allow respondents to
take their time to speak openly and frankly
about their views. It also allowed the interviewers to ask follow-up questions about various points made in the conversations to draw
out a richer understanding of a respondent’s
attitudes.
Results
The data suggest the interplay of three major
thematic explanations of these respondents’
attitudes toward immigration. As presented in
Table 1, many respondents clearly suggested
that immigrants represented a racialized threat
on several different levels. In addition, respondents, particularly white respondents, categorized what they knew about immigrants by
comparing them with blacks in their communities. However, despite the respondents’ willingness to discuss their fears of immigrants out
loud, they also deployed three diminutive
color-blind frames to excuse some of their blatant points of view during their interviews. In
fact, while the analysis separates these themes
and concepts to show the discursive uses, it
should be noted that respondents oscillated
between suggesting immigrants were a threat
to back-peddling or excusing blatant, racistnativist points, with color-blind rhetoric. In
addition, the respondents (n = 172) conflated
all immigrant problems as a result of “Mexican
illegals” or “Mexicans” in general and never
really discussed other immigrant groups as a
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
8
Social Currents
Table 1. Coded Themes and Concepts on Immigration Attitudes.
Ratio and percentage
of respondents using
theme or concept
Coded theme or concept
Theme or concept title
THEME 1
Concept 1a
Concept 1b
Concept 1c
Concept 1d
THEME 2
Concept 2a
Concept 2b
THEME 3
Concept 3a
Concept 3b
Concept 3c
Immigrant Threat: “Sucking Us Dry”
“Population Overload”
“Economic Problems”
“Draining Public Resources”
“Destroying American Culture”
Black-Latino Comparisons: “All the Same”
“Cultural Similarities”
“Economic Similarities”
Diminutive Frames: “Color-blind Rhetoric”
“Illegals”
“Playing the Immigrant Card”
“Biologization of Culture”
concern. Below, I present the qualitative evidence demonstrating the three major themes
and concepts that characterize respondents’
views of immigration.
“Sucking Us Dry”: Fears and
Racialization of Immigration
Around 45 percent of respondents presented
fears typically expressed by Americans concerning the increases in immigration rates to
the United States. Respondents particularly
expressed fears that increased immigration
rates would equal negative economic impacts,
a drain on public resources, and problematic
cultural shifts soon to come with what they
saw as an ever-increasing “browning” of the
U.S. population. In fact, about 15 percent of
the respondents who saw increasing immigration rates as a problem particularly noted the
U.S. Census’ 2050 population projections
report, suggesting that whites in the United
States would represent only about 46 percent
of the population, whereas Hispanics or
Latinos would represent around 30 percent
(Ortman and Guarneri 2009). For example,
Christine, a 22-year-old white female stated,
“You know the Census, it said that whites
would not be the majority in 2050. . . . I’m
afraid our country won’t be able to handle that
kind of change. . . . I surely don’t want to have
[to] learn Spanish . . .”
81/180 (45%)
27/180 (15%)
74/180 (41%)
67/180 (37%)
40/180 (22%)
58/180 (32%)
40/180 (22%)
34/180 (19%)
110/180 (61%)
79/180 (44%)
59/180 (33%)
36/180 (20%)
Beyond the concern sparked by Census
reports, 41 percent of the respondents’ most
common fear or concern expressed was that
immigrants were taking American jobs and
causing economic problems for the United
States. Jeff, a 19-year-old white male, suggested that “Mexicans” were an economic
threat. He stated, “Jobs are scarce even though,
you know I think North Carolina is doing okay.
I know plenty of good friends that can’t get
jobs in the summer when they go home because
of the Mexicans.” Lucas, another white male
stated this:
I’m not too worried, I mean they can’t speak
English all that good so they can’t work for [left
out company name] delivery services. But that
doesn’t mean they’re not waiting to get my job. I
walk in every morning and there they are lined
up to get job applications and get started as a
loader but they can’t drive yet because, thank
God, the state won’t just let anyone have a
driver’s license.
Samantha, a 23-year-old white female student,
suggested that “Mexicans” were taking over
every job she could get. She stated,
I don’t have anything against them. You know,
you can’t fault them for trying but they are kind
of like wild animals that devour everything . . .
they come in and take up every job they can. . . .
Well, one day you walk into Wal-mart and
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
9
Lippard
there’s your grandmother greeting you and the
next day you go in and grandma’s been replaced
by Juanita. I mean, these Mexicans are quick. . . .
What will America do when they want to be
professionals like I aspire to be, [like] a lawyer?
A final example of this fear of challenging jobs
comes from Jake, a 21-year-old white male,
who saw his family members lose jobs due to
outsourcing in South Carolina. He stated this
about the current economic situation in his
home state:
Sometimes I worry about the state and its
[economic] future. I believe that the Hispanics
moving in help make the state economically
strong, but that’s not what I’m concerned with.
I’m concerned with all the jobs that will be only
geared toward Mexican immigrants. Every day a
new McDonald’s goes up or a new meatprocessing plant is put in, but there hasn’t been
much development concerning jobs for us
Americans. [Southerners] are very educated and
we need jobs that match our skills and education
and you know, old corporate America is going to
cater to the cheapest labor source it can get. . . .
If the Mexicans keep coming, that’s all big
business is going to want to build businesses for
and hire them instead of my grandchildren.
With these comments, respondents present a
typical fear of immigrants taking jobs from
“more-deserving” Americans. While respondents do not necessarily see “Mexican” immigrants as a threat to their personal career
opportunities, they indicate that immigrants,
particularly Mexican immigrants, take jobs that
would otherwise go to Americans. Despite this
impression, research has suggested that immigrants do not take away jobs or necessarily
reduce wages in the United States for most
native-born American workers (Borjas 2003;
Grant and Parcel 1990; Rosenfeld and Tienda
1999). Only a few studies have found some
direct competition in southern industries
between native- and foreign-born workers when
education and skills are equal (Marrow 2011).
Another shared concern expressed among
respondents (37 percent) was that immigrants were a drain on public resources, or as
John, an 18-year-old white male student stated,
“Mexicans are sucking us dry . . . jobs,
benefits, even taking away the very services
we Americans need.” Many of the respondents
expressed this concern in the context of possibly working with immigrants in their future
occupations. For example, Anna, a 21-year-old
Asian student stated,
I’ve learned that they go to the hospital for
emergency care and they don’t have insurance.
Some of them are really bad off, broken limbs,
heart attacks, but they can’t pay for it. So, you
know what happens, tax payers have to pay for
it, or they write off the debt because once the
Hispanic guy leaves the hospital, they never can
find him again . . .
Perkins, a 23-year-old black student just starting his teaching assistantship also believes that
“Hispanic” children present a serious problem
for the school system. He stated,
Many in my county can’t speak a lick of English
and we, as future teachers, have to help the best
way. . . . I don’t have time to cater to them as a
reading teacher when I will have twenty other
children that need attention and can’t read even
though they speak English. I know you hear
teachers always complaining that they’re overworked but this time they’re not crying wolf.
Mexican families need to go somewhere else
until they learn English and not burden our
already-struggling public education system.
Another future teacher, Luke, a 23-year-old
white male, saw Hispanics, even those that
were born in the United States, as a burden on
public schools and most public services. He
suggested that Hispanic children were oppositional to participating in public education:
Luke:They cost too much. Think about
this, every Hispanic kid I work
with to make them understand
U.S. History is a waste of time
because most of them will want to
go back home when they get the
chance . . . if you calculate my
future pay and the time they
waste, I think you waste about
$100 a day on their education.
Interviewer:But don’t they need to learn U.S.
History to be a citizen?
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
10
Social Currents
Luke:Sure, but they don’t want to learn it.
They fight it and you see their parents
or relatives on TV waving the
Mexican flag. I mean, we waste a lot
of money on these people, giving
public education better than they
would ever get at home . . .
Hank, a white male student, sums up these
fears by stating, “Legal or illegal, Mexicans
use America like toilet paper. They get what
they want because they are minorities!!”
In all the quotes above, respondents see
undocumented Mexican immigrants, as getting something for nothing. Particularly, they
suggest that these immigrants receive a special
privilege to access public resources without
paying taxes or being a documented immigrant
or naturalized citizen. This view of privileged
minorities is not new for Americans, because
several scholars have documented that whites
and other racial groups frequently identify
affirmative action and any attempts to help any
racial minority overcome racial discrimination
as a special right or privilege (Bonilla-Silva
2014; Feagin 2010; Gallagher 2004). However,
it does point out that these particular respondents are thinking about Mexican immigrants
within the same racialized contexts that they
have used in the past to explain minority race
relations, which will become clearer later.
A final fear for respondents was that about
22 percent of respondents saw the new
“Latino” culture as overshadowing white and
American culture. Sam, a freshman, stated,
You never know what they will change in
America. The Irish gave us St. Patrick’s Day and
some tendencies to drink, the Italians gave us
spaghetti and pizza and the mob, Mexicans bring
us tacos, salsa, and Cinco de Mayo? Hell, you
never know, we might have to start stocking goat
meat and tortillas in the grocery stores . . .
Sarah, a black female student, stated, “I’m not
really concerned about how they give us tacos
and margaritas, I mean, what I can’t stand is
that everything has to have two languages . . .”
While most of these items are superficial
issues of culture focusing on food, other
respondents really wanted to make sure interviewers understood that Latinos were taking
over and that they were completely different,
culturally, from Americans. Moreover, they
wanted to distance themselves from Latinos
and point out the superiority of the American
way of life. Michelle, a white female, stated
this about how “alien” Latinos were: “They are
illegal aliens . . . they don’t speak the same language, eat the same foods, treat their families
the same, or believe in following the rules.
And if you can’t follow the rules, then you’re
not American.” Haley, a black female, stated,
I lived in Charlotte and we’ve just started to deal
with the Hispanic problems that Miami and
south Florida has. My friend, who lives in
Miami, says we have it worse though because
Mexicans are nasty, smelly, and don’t have the
same respect for the United States as Cubans do
. . . I guess I would agree.
In a conversation between two criminal justice
majors, Jefferson, who is a white male, and
Jamal, a black male, presented their views on
how different and threatening “Mexicans”
were.
Jefferson:
I can’t stand them. They ride
twenty to a car and sleep ten to a
bed. They look like they haven’t
washed their asses in three weeks.
Jamal:Yeah, they have like eight kids a
piece and you’ll see the mom
shopping at a Super Wal-Mart
pushing three buggies piled with
all kinds of nasty shit like tripe,
cow tongue, and cow hearts.
Jefferson, tell her about your run
in with them.
Jefferson:Yeah, I’m an intern with a police
department and we have to deal
with them all the time. I mean
they will get drunk as shit on pay
day and just start hooting and hollering, running down the road. . . .
Well, this one Julio decides that
he’s going to literally shit right on
this guy’s nice sports car.
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
11
Lippard
Jamal:
Yeah, you won’t catch no selfrespecting white or black dude
acting like that!
These comments spark several interpretations. First, many of the comments are about
making sure Latino immigrants are clearly
labeled as outsiders or different from “civilized” America. In fact, throughout these interviews, the interviewer attempted to refocus
participants on commenting on all Hispanic
groups and immigration in general, but all of
the respondents continued to use “Mexican” as
the stigmatized nom de guerre for all Latinos.
Second, America often forgets its “othering”
of past immigrant groups because they have
assimilated. In Haley’s comment, Cubans are
no longer a threat, nor are they similar to newly
arriving Latino immigrants. Also, the descriptions of Latinos, as demonstrated here and
later, frequently resemble whites’ description
of blacks or even their explanation of why
blacks do not succeed.
Many of the comments presented above and
throughout focus solely on Latino immigrants,
Hispanics, or “Mexicans,” as the problem of
immigration. In fact, 96 percent conflated the
discussion of immigration as only dealing with
Mexican immigrants. This happened even
when interviewers presented questions that
generally asked about the respondent’s views
of immigration, not Mexican migration specifically. For instance, as Jake, a white male
stated, “I’m not worried about German illegal
immigrants or even Columbian or African illegal immigrants. It’s the Mexicans we got to
watch because they are coming to take back
what we won at the Alamo.” Or, as Johnson, an
Asian student, stated, “At least it is not us
Asians that people are upset about. . . . I mean,
we follow the rules.” This shows some of the
process of racializing this debate on immigration among the respondents. As described by
Omi and Winant (2015), racialization is the
process of adding racial-specific meaning to
groups who are not necessarily viewed or
treated as a distinct racial group. The comments above provided a clear use of racialization and anti-immigrant sentiment focusing
only on Latino immigrants; namely, illegal
Mexican immigrants.
“They’re All the Same”: Black-Latino
Comparisons
Further racialization appeared when respondents provided several black-Latino comparisons to explain their views of immigration.
Respondents often agreed (78 percent) that
Latino immigrants were the new minority in the
South. No matter where they lived, respondents
talked about the increases in Latino immigrants
because of various industries recruiting immigrant labor in agriculture, construction, meatpacking, and textiles. Still, Latino populations
in all of the new settlement states were less than
7 percent of the total population in 2006
(Furuseth and Smith 2006; Massey 2008).
However, as Higham (1999) predicted, racial
nativism will increase if nonwhite immigrant
populations grew too rapidly or became concentrated in certain geographic areas.
Despite this growing immigrant population,
32 percent of the respondents viewed this new
minority population as similar, culturally and
economically, to the current black majorityminority they had lived around for decades.
Forty-six percent of the respondents suggested
cultural similarities and another 19 percent
suggested economic similarities. However, it
should be noted that none of the nonwhite
respondents suggested this comparison
between Latino immigrants and Blacks; only
white respondents. Carl, a white male, said this
about the differences between Latinos and
blacks: “Well, what’s the difference? Hispanics
speak Spanish but they pretty much act like
blacks where I’m from.” Lucy, a white female,
said something very similar, “Hispanics are
immigrants and blacks aren’t that much different when it comes to family life and lifestyles.”
Haley from Florida also stated,
Haley:Well, they [blacks and Latinos]
obviously have different cultures and have some skin [color]
differences but I wouldn’t say
they necessarily act different.
They do drugs, crime, and hate
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
12
Social Currents
hard-working people just the
same as blacks. Funny isn’t it?
Interviewer:What’s funny?
Haley:
They hate one another even
though they are very much
alike.
As suggested above and by thirty other
respondents, even though there was nativeversus foreign-born differences between
Latinos and blacks, they were more similar
than different. Dara, a white female student,
said this about the similarities and differences
between Latinos and blacks:
Well, back when I was growing up, all you had
to worry about is shifty colored people or what
my dad says, “shifty niggers.” Now, you have to
worry about Mexicans taking your jobs and
trashing up your neighborhood. They’re really
all the same . . . there are shifty Mexicans too.
Kenneth, a white male student, provided his
historical comparison of these two groups:
Here we are in this state dealing with two groups
that do nothing to deserve our respect or our tax
money. Blacks and Mexicans all want something
for nothing and that’s the way it’s always been.
Back in the day, blacks wanted more rights and
wanted to eat at the same table. Now they are the
poorest people, have fatherless families, can’t
hold a job, and are still as lazy as before. And
now, here we are with the Mexican immigrants
wanting more rights but they do the same stuff
blacks do . . . wear the same baggy clothes,
listening to the Hip-hop, doing drugs, and
committing serious crimes . . . similarities are
clear.
Finally, Sherry, a white female, stated this in
her own historical view:
My daddy always warned me about being around
blacks. He would tell me, “Don’t you talk to
’em, be friends with ’em, but don’t you dare
bring one home to meet your momma.” He gave
me the same lecture when the Hispanics moved
into town.
As seen in these quotes, respondents suggested
that blacks and Latinos share negative social
traits. For example, neither group had command of the English language, both were
marked by “laziness” and were prone to criminal behavior. Matthew, a white male who plans
to be a police officer after college, stated this
about criminals and racial profiling:
Racial profiling is wrong but it works.
Unfortunately, blacks and Latinos are both poor,
driving shit-boxes with expired tags and they’re
going to get pulled over faster than the white
coke dealer.
These white respondents view blacks and
Latinos, especially their interactions with these
groups, as one and the same. However, while
some note cultural and nativity differences,
they never suggest that the links they draw
between these groups have anything to do with
the structural and social factors that select
these minority groups as targets of the
American social system. Moreover, this comparison only comes up with white students,
who lump these groups together as “nonwhites” and do not see too much difference in
their social interactions with these groups.
Moreover, these respondents deploy colorblind logic to cloak the notion that they may be
prejudicial or racist in their explanations.
However, they clearly use what Molina (2010)
identified as “racial scripts.” To understand
and contextualize their new interactions with
Mexican immigrants, white respondents use
their stereotypes and limited experiences with
blacks to shape their views and discourse about
immigration. As noted by Molina (2010), this
script helps whites, and other Americans, to
quickly racialize Mexican immigrants and
place them along with blacks as racially inferior to whites.
“Immigrant Cards” and “Illegals”:
Color-blind Frames
While many respondents were clear about their
fears of immigration and Latino immigrants,
several respondents worked hard to mix their
blatant comments with color-blind rhetorical
shields and diminutive frames to cloak their
more negative views of Latino immigrants than
overtly stating their concerns. As described by
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
13
Lippard
Bonilla-Silva (2014), color-blind rhetoric
attempts to discredit the possibilities of racism
or racial discrimination by focusing on more
seemingly liberal discussions of disadvantage.
Sixty-one percent of the respondents often
shaped their critique of Latino immigrants or
the discussion of immigration problems in the
United States with what Bonilla-Silva defined
as a “diminutive” frame. Three frames were
clearly used to justify respondents’ negative
attitudes and fears toward immigrants and their
impacts on American society. These include
what I identify as liberal objections to criminality, “playing the immigrant card,” and cultural
racism.
“Damn illegals!” No excuses for criminals. One
major diminutive frame used by respondents
that diminished the problems Latino immigrants
faced was by pointing out that they were breaking the law. Around 44 percent of the respondents emphasized that Latino immigrants were
here illegally and deserved any treatment they
received because they were breaking the law,
not because they were targeted based on their
skin color. As stated by Keith, “To be an American means to follow the rules and laws set forth.
You know? You can’t come here and do whatever you want.” Ann, a white female, stated,
“Well, you know they all came illegally to North
Carolina . . . and I don’t care that the companies
here recruited them. They should have known
better to come here illegally and they deserve to
go to jail.” Lucy, a white female, stated this
about the fairness of border patrolling:
I heard on the news that hundreds of Mexicans
had died crossing the border from falling or
getting dehydrated. I mean, I don’t think they
should suffer, but if they would just go through
the procedures of applying for visas, then they
wouldn’t have to suffer so much.
Kirk, a white male pre-law student, stated,
“The problem isn’t that they are Mexican or
brown and people need to understand that. The
problem is that they come here illegally, breaking the law. If you run a stop light, then you
deserve a ticket. Don’t you?”
Bonilla-Silva (2014) or Omi and Winant
(2015) often characterized responses like this
as “abstract liberalism,” in which people dismiss mistreatment or oppose equal treatment if
it means preferential treatment for one particular group over another. Or, as suggested by the
respondents in this study, if immigrants arrive
illegally, then any equal treatment, use of public services, or becoming a citizen after the fact
is preferential treatment and unfair to “hardworking Americans.”
Playing the “immigrant card.” Another way
respondents used color-blind frame was playing an “immigrant card” to conceal their negative attitudes toward immigration. About 33
percent of the respondents using this type of
color-blind tool dismissed the discrimination
and problems Latino immigrants faced because
the respondents’ ancestors possibly faced the
same hardships as immigrants coming to
America. For instance, Robert, a white male,
stated, “I come from a long line of Irish Catholics and we were considered . . . Can I say this,
niggers, not too long ago. [Latino immigrants]
have to do their time at the bottom of the ladder now.” Kayla, a white female who first
mentioned that she “loved all people,” stated,
Yeah, what do they think they can do? Just come
here and get the good stuff without working for
it like my immigrant relatives did from Scotland?
You have to work to be respected in the U.S. and
that’s the way it works for everyone.
As suggested by Steinberg (2001), most of
America understands that stratification exists
and everyone, including immigrants, has to
work hard to ascend to a better life. Or, as
Gallagher (2004) found, whites use the “ethnic
card” to defend their negative positions against
blacks to suggest that their “immigrant” kin
faced just as many problems as nonwhites face
today. Mark, a white male, stated,
I’m a white man and I still have to do what I’m
told if I want anything. This is the same for
Hispanics. My Italian family did it my
girlfriend’s Polish family did it. Hispanics
should be required to do the same.
Jackie, a white female, stated, “Who comes to
America and doesn’t have to follow the rules?
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
14
Social Currents
We all did it as immigrants and there is no
exception for anyone.” These respondents also
agree with the sentiment that assimilation is
the requirement and problems arrive when
groups do not do it quickly. As Caleb, a white
male, stated, “Hispanics will be fine as long as
they do like my folks did, forget your history
for now and do as we say.” Or as Christopher,
who is Hispanic, stated, “Be American now
and Mexican on Cinco de Mayo.”
The respondents above pointed out that
stratification and the treatment of Latinos in
the present day is “natural,” as something
everyone has to go through to be a part of the
United States. Bonilla-Silva (2014) noted that
people often use diminutive framing of their
opinions to suggest that what one group faces
is a natural function of American society, thus
making it okay. Melissa, who mentioned that
she is a part-time student but works with Latino
clients on a day-to-day basis in a social services building, stated,
Mexican families can’t just come to this country
and get services; they have to work for them like
everyone else. I don’t care if they are Mexican,
Hispanic, or blue like a Smurf, they need to learn
the order of things.
Cultural cues of discrimination. A final colorblind tactic was that about 20 percent of the
respondents expressed their concerns about
Latinos by blaming Latino culture for any
plight immigrants faced or why the respondents disliked them. For example, Anne, white
female, stated this about her issues with
Latinos:
You know my people worked hard to get where
they are today and we don’t want to give that up
to a group of people who don’t have the same
values of living. I mean, they work hard and
that’s good, but they don’t seem to want to keep
up their property or do anything but work.
Similarly, Lucas, a black male, argued that
Mexican immigrants were culturally different
and could never fit into America. He stated,
They are okay I guess . . . they work and show up
on time . . . but they will never be Americans.
They won’t speak English and they seem to, you
know, their culture just consumes and moves on.
They are kind of like wondering grazers. They
will always be workers and never amount to
much because their people don’t encourage
advancement. I feel that is generational.
Like Lucas, Thomas, a white male, suggested
that Latino culture is the reason why Latinos
migrate and fill the jobs they do.
Thomas:
Mexicans are migraters, they
can’t stay in one place because
they’ve never had a time in
their histories where they did. .
. . They also pick the same
jobs. I mean, have you ever
met a Mexican that hadn’t
worked in construction back
home? Or have you ever met a
Mexican that didn’t know how
to cut grass or wash dishes. I
mean, they can’t help it, it’s in
their blood to follow directions
and do manual labor . . .
Interviewer:How do you explain those that
have companies and are
doctors?
Thomas:They ain’t Mexican. They ain’t
American, they’re just lucky or
they did what they was told to
do. And I’m not trying to say
they couldn’t be Mexicans. I
mean, my family was born to
be truck drivers and men of
transportation and that’s what
we’ve been forever.
These respondents use color-blind rhetoric
so that they will not be clearly labeled as offensive or racist by pointing out cultural deficiencies, not racial ones. In fact, they believe that
they are being less racist because they do not
specifically identify the issues they have with
Latinos as racial issues. As Thomas stated,
“I’m not a racist for pointing out the truth.
Everyone has to do their part and Mexicans
and some others don’t do it.” However, playing the immigrant card or chalking up any
problems immigrants face as due course for
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
15
Lippard
being an illegal immigrant does not dismiss
what is subtly suggested in the respondents’
comments. Most respondents often pointed out
clear, and sometimes, misguided anxieties
toward undocumented Mexican immigrants,
even though they may have justified their comments with what they saw as liberal logic and
less racist or nativist sentiments.
Conclusion
This study explored southern respondents’
immigration attitudes and whether these views
are framed by color-blind rhetoric. Many
respondents were blatant about their fears of
immigrants entering the United States. As
found by previous research on immigration
attitudes, respondents suggested that they were
afraid of immigrants taking jobs, using up public resources, and changing American culture.
Moreover, these fears matched what Sánchez
(1997) pointed out about racist nativism in
which respondents conveyed apathy toward
Non-English languages, believed that racialized immigrants get special privileges, drain
public resources, and limit job opportunities.
Respondents were also candid in racializing
the “immigrant problem” as solely dealing with
undocumented and documented Mexican immigrants. In fact, only a handful (less than 5 percent) of the respondents ever related their
concerns about immigration to non-Latino
immigrant groups. However, many of the
respondents spent some time comparing what
they knew about racialized populations, attempting to explain undocumented Mexican immigrant behaviors and culture through a black-white
racial lens. These comparisons highlighted
Molina’s (2010) “racial scripts” explanation in
which white respondents often compared their
views of immigrants to their stereotypical understanding of blacks to clearly racialize and place
Mexican immigrants as inferior, right along with
blacks. With this in mind, this study finds a clear
link between racialization and immigration
through color-blind rhetoric, a story already told
by some scholars but not yet fully recognized
(Higham 1955; Molina 2010).
These anti-immigrant attitudes matched
other studies of new immigrant destinations in
the American South. O’Neil and Tienda (2010)
found that North Carolina residents with college degrees tended to still express anti-immigrant attitudes in comparison with residents
with less than a college degree. In fact, the
respondents in this study often use educated
arguments (e.g., Census 2050 report) to justify
their fears, suggesting that there is some critical thought to their discussion. However, they
often lacked reflexivity on how their arguments may be racist or nativist. Based on
O’Neil and Tienda’s (2010) research, these
results presented may be due to the rapid
increase of Latino immigrant populations in
North Carolina coupled with negative media
portrayals, and lack of sustained contact with
immigrants led to higher levels of fear. This
may be true with this sample as well as many
respondents in this study were from areas of
the South that saw rapid increases but little
integration of immigrants (Massey 2008). Neal
and Bohon (2003) also suggested the same
trends in immigrant attitudes in Georgia where
fears of immigrants grew with the “hypergrowth” of Mexican immigrant population
across the state. Marrow (2011) also found this
to be true across communities in North
Carolina, particularly when Mexican immigrants moved into rural areas where they had
never existed before 2000. Thus, being educated may have little to do with how these attitudes were shaped for these respondents and
more about southerners having a “gut reaction” to possibly new interactions with a newly
introduced nonwhite population.
It should also be noted that while the nonwhite sample is very small in this study and not
generalizable, there were a number of nonwhite respondents expressing fears and colorblind rhetoric in this study. The fears expressed
corresponded with previous research findings
that suggest blacks and Mexican Americans
view recent influxes of immigration as a possible threat to resources, particularly jobs
(Marrow 2011). They also deployed colorblind rhetoric as to not sound too prejudicial in
their complaints, as noted by Bonilla-Silva
(2014), concerning black racial attitudes.
However, this study really provided data that
suggested that nonwhite respondents did not
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
16
Social Currents
think of immigrants in the same ways as white
respondents. The black-Latino comparisons
never came up for nonwhite respondents, and
they never deployed these racial scripts. Like
Bonilla-Silva (2014), this study provided some
data, albeit limited, supporting the conclusion
that nonwhites do not think of immigration or
the racialization of Mexican immigrants in the
same ways as whites.
The more significant findings in this
research were that respondents often used
color-blind rhetoric in tandem with their racist
nativist views to provide what they felt were
rational and less prejudicial justifications for
their immigration attitudes. One common
color-blind frame attached to nativist views
was respondents playing an “immigrant card,”
which often couched any critique of Mexican
immigrants as part of the immigrant tradition of
the United States, and thus, natural. Respondents
often used their supposed immigrant ancestry
to justify the mistreatment that Latino immigrants currently faced. Gallagher (2004) found
this as well when whites would dismiss any
mistreatment blacks faced by pointing out that
their “ethnic” ancestors also had to work hard
and follow the rules (i.e., enter the country
legally) to be accepted into America. However,
as suggested by Steinberg (2001), most
Americans do not usually know their true
immigrant ancestry. Moreover, while European
immigrants undoubtedly faced racialization
and discrimination, white Americans often do
not understand the varying rates and difficulties
white “ethnic” immigrants faced assimilating
and being accepted as true “Americans.” In
short, this frame cloaked their stereotypical and
racialized attitudes toward immigrants and
excused any harsh actions or hardships that
Mexican immigrants currently face.
Another color-blind frame that surfaced in
these data was that any nativist or racist comments could be dismissed because Mexican
immigrants were viewed as “illegals,” who take
advantage of American generosity and public
resources and receive special treatment. This is
particularly revealing in that it becomes an
important color-blind frame to cover up racist
and nativist sentiment. In fact, this has become
a common argument among anti-immigrant
lobbying and special interest groups in the political sphere, who support the idea that those who
break the law (come to the country illegally)
should be deported and not receive any resources
that belong to law-abiding American citizens
(Carter and Lippard 2015). As suggested by
Jaret (1999), the great difference in antiimmigrant sentiment in the twenty-first century
versus the past has been the focus on undocumented immigration. For these respondents, it
becomes a way to excuse nativist sentiments
focused solely on Mexican immigrants. More
important, this sentiment aligns with color-blind
rhetoric that views any affirmative action policies or discussions of further civil rights for nonwhites as special treatment infringing on equality
for all (neoliberalism; Bonilla-Silva 2014).
Overall, this research demonstrates how
anti-immigrant attitudes can be camouflaged
by using color-blind rhetoric. At first, it seems
as though these respondents were rather blunt
about their views of immigration. However,
once further explored, color-blind rhetoric
became a way to present nuances to the discussion that softened the blow of these respondents’ racialized and nativist critiques. These
results may better explain the ideological
jumps noted in national polls where individual
everyday discussions support the idea of immigration, but in the same breath, call for stricter
policies and undocumented deportations. This
is also supported in new destination research
that has suggested anti-immigrant responses
are due to rapid increases in the immigrant
populations but have not resulted in a full and
blatant racist nativist response by the nativeborn population (Lippard and Gallagher 2011).
More important, this seems to follow the same
trends of racial attitudes scholarship that has
consistently noted the downplaying of blatantly racist rants against nonwhites and more
colorblindness, neoliberalism, and call for
explanations of racial injustice as “anything
but” racism (Omi and Winant 2015).
Immigration attitudes research should continue to examine how these everyday discussions become a part of the structure to serve as
rhetorical nuances in social policies and laws;
particularly, those that attempt to “fix” the
immigration system but often use racial scripts,
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
17
Lippard
racialization, and color-blind diminutives to
excuse racist and nativist actions against mainly
nonwhites. Research evidence has already
begun to build, showing how state and federal
immigration policies (i.e., Arizona SB 1070,
Alabama HB 56) used color-blind and paternalistic tactics to encourage discrimination once
again toward Mexican immigrants and citizens
“who fit the profile” (Carter and Lippard 2015;
Molina 2010; Omi and Winant 2015). More
research must examine whether these colorblind frames identified here arise in structural
discourse to justify racial projects against
Latino and nonwhite immigrant populations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Ayers, John W., C. Richard Hofstetter, Keith
Schnakenberg, and Bohdan Kolody. 2009. “Is
Immigration a Racial Issue? Anglo Attitudes
on Immigration Policies in a Border County.”
Social Science Quarterly 90(3):593–610.
Bloch, Katrina. 2013. “‘Anyone Can Be an Illegal’:
Color-blind Ideology and Maintaining Latino/
Citizen Borders.” Critical Sociology 40(1):47–65.
Bobo, Lawrence, James Kluegel, and Ryan
Smith. 1997. “‘Laissez Faire Racism: The
Crystallization of a ‘Kinder, Gentler’ Antiblack Ideology.” Pp. 15–44 in Racial Attitudes
in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, edited
by S. A. Tuch and J. K. Martin. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2014. Racism without
Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence
of Racial Inequality in the United States. 4th ed.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Borjas, George. 2003. “The Labor Demand Curve
Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact
of Immigration on the Labor Market.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:1335–74.
Burns, Peter and James G. Gimpel. 2000. “Economic
Insecurity, Prejudicial Stereotypes, and Public
Opinion on Immigration Policy.” Political
Science Quarterly 115:201–29.
Carter, J. Scott and Cameron D. Lippard. 2015.
“Group Position, Threat, and Immigration: The
Role of Interest Groups and Elite Actors in
Setting the ‘Lines of Discussion.’” Sociology of
Race and Ethnicity, 1(3):394–408.
Chavez, Leo R. 2008. The Latino Threat: Constructing
Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Citrin, Jack, Donald Green, Christopher Muste,
and Cara Wong. 1997. “Public Opinion toward
Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic
Motivations.” Journal of Politics 59(3):858–81.
Dietrich, David R. 2011. “The Specter of Racism
in the 2005–6 Immigration Debate: Preserving
Racial Group Position.” Critical Sociology
38(5):723–45.
Feagin, Joe. 2010. Racist America: Roots, Current
Realities, and Future Reparations. New York:
Routledge.
Furuseth, Owen and Heather Smith. 2006. “From
Winn-Dixie to Tiendas: The Remaking of
the New South.” Pp. 1–18 in Latinos in the
New South, edited by H. Smith and F. Owen.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Galindo, René and Jami Vigil. 2006. “Are Antiimmigrant Statements Racist or Nativist? What
Difference Does It Make?” Latino Studies
4:419–47.
Gallagher, Charles, ed. 2004. “Playing the White
Ethnic Card: Using Ethnic Identity to Deny
Contemporary Racism.” Pp. 148–58 in White
Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism,
edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.
Gallagher, Charles, ed. 2008. Racism in Post-race
America: New Theories, New Directions.
Chapel Hill, NC: Social Forces Publishing.
Gill, Heather. 2010. The Latino Migration
Experience in North Carolina. Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Grant, Don Sherman and Toby Parcel. 1990.
“Revisiting Metropolitan Racial Inequality:
The Case for a Resource Approach.” Social
Forces 68:1121–42.
Higham, John. 1955. Strangers in the Land:
Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Higham, John. 1999. “Instead of a Sequel, or How I
Lost My Subject.” Pp. 383–89 in The Handbook
of International Migration: The American
Experience, edited by C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz,
and J. DeWind. New York: Russell Sage.
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
18
Social Currents
Huber, Lindsay Perez, Corina Benavides Lopez,
Maria C. Malagon, Veronica Velez, and
Daniel G. Solorzano. 2008. “Getting beyond
the ‘Symptom,’ Acknowledging the ‘Disease’:
Theorizing Racist Nativism.” Contemporary
Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and
Restorative Justice 11:39–51.
Jaret, Charles. 1999. “Troubled by Newcomers:
Anti-immigrant Attitudes and Action during
Two Eras of Mass Immigration to the United
States.” Journal of American Ethnic History
18:9–39.
Lippard, Cameron. 2011. “Racist Nativism in the 21st
Century.” Sociology Compass. 5(7):591–606.
Lippard, Cameron and Charles Gallagher, eds.
2011. Being Brown in Dixie: Race, Ethnicity,
and Latino Immigration in the New South.
Boulder, CO: First Forum Press.
Lippard, Cameron and M. Graham Spann. 2014.
“Mexican Immigrant Experiences with Discrimination in Southern Appalachia.” Latino
Studies, 12(3):274–398.
Lopez, Mark and Anna Gonzalez-Barrera. 2013.
“Latinos’ Views of the Impact of Illegal
Immigration on Their Community Improve.”
Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved May 1, 2015
(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/10/03/latinos-views-of-illegal-immigrations-impact-ontheir-community-improves/).
Lu, Lingyu and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2010.
“Reassessing the Impact of Hispanic Stereotypes
on White Americans’ Immigration Preferences.”
Social Science Quarterly 91:1312–28.
Marrow, Helen. 2011. New Destination Dreaming:
Immigration, Race, and Legal Status in the
Rural American South. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Massey, Douglas. 2004. “Samuel P. Huntington:
Who are We? The Challenges to America’s
National Identity.” Population and Development Review 30:543–8.
Massey, Douglas, eds. 2008. New Faces in New
Places: The Changing Geography of American
Immigration. New York: Russell Sage.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 2005. Qualitative Research
Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McClain, Paula. 2006. “North Carolina’s Response
to Latino Immigrants and Immigration.”
Pp. 7–32 in Immigration’s New Frontiers:
Experiences from the Emerging Gateway
States, edited by G. Anrig, Jr. and T. A. Wang.
New York: The Century Foundation Press.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman
1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mohl, Raymond. 2003. “Globalization, Latinization,
and the Nuevo New South.” Journal of
American Ethnic History 22:31–66.
Molina, Natalia. 2010. “The Power of Racial Scripts:
What the History of Mexican Immigration to
United States Teaches Us about Relational
Notions of Race.” Latino Studies, 8(2):156–75.
Navarro, Armando. 2009. The Immigration Crisis:
Nativism, Armed Vigilantism, and the Rise of
a Countervailing Movement. Boulder, CO:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Neal, Micki and Stephanie A. Bohon. 2003. “The
Dixie Diaspora: Attitudes toward Immigrants
in Georgia.” Sociological Spectrum, 23(2):
181–212.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 2015. Racial
Formation in the United States. 3rd ed. New
York: Routledge.
O’Neil, Kevin and Marta Tienda. 2010. “A Tale
of Two Counties: Natives’ Opinions toward
Immigration in North Carolina.” International
Migration Review 44(3):728–61.
Ortman, Jennifer M. and Christine E. Guarneri.
2009. “United States Population Projections:
2000 to 2050.” United States Census Bureau.
Retrieved January 15, 2014 (http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/analyticaldocument09.pdf).
Parrado, E. and W. Kandel. 2008. “New Hispanic
Migrant Destinations: A Tale of Two
Industries.” Pp. 99-123 in New Faces in New
Places, edited by D. Massey. New York:
Russell Sage.
Polling Report. 2014. “Immigration and Refugees.”
Retrieved October 1, 2014 (http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm).
Rosenfeld, Michael and Marta Tienda. 1999.
“Mexican Immigration, Occupational Niches,
and Labor-market Competition: Evidence from
Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta, 1970-1990.”
Pp. 64–105 in Immigration and Opportunity:
Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United
States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie
Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage.
Saad, Lydia. 2010. “Americans Value Both Aspects
of Immigration Reform.” Retrieved September
29, 2010 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127649/
Aemricans-Value-Aspects-ImmigrationReform.aspx).
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015
19
Lippard
Sánchez, George. 1997. “Face the Nation: Race,
Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late
Twentieth Century America.” International
Migration Review 4:1009–30.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence
Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1997. Racial Attitudes
in America: Trends and Interpretations. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Steinberg, Stephen. 2001. The Ethnic Myth: Race,
Ethnicity, and Class in America. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Winders, J. 2009. “Placing Latino Migration and
Migrant Experiences in the U.S. South: The
Complexities of Regional and Local Trends.”
Pp. 223–244 in Global Connections & Local
Receptions, edited by F. Ansley and J. Shefner.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Downloaded from scu.sagepub.com at APPALACHIAN STATE UNIV on September 22, 2015