All posts tagged trump

Understanding Refugee Resettlement

By Mackenzie Hoekstra

January 19, 2025

In 2023, around 43.4 million people globally were recognized as refugees; of that 43.4 million, only about 60,000 were admitted to be resettled in the United States (UNHCR; OHSS). The number of refugees admitted for resettlement is determined by the cap established by the current president and Congress. This cap has fluctuated largely over the past eight years, with the lowest annual ceiling and number of admitted refugees set by former President Trump in 2017 at 50,000. During his final year in office, 2020, he lowered the cap to 18,000 and the number of refugees admitted fell to 11,000. These admittances were much lower than after, including tighter vetting and restrictions following 9/11.

Migration Policy Institute

What exactly defines someone as a refugee? Does it mean they are coming to the United States entirely of their own choice? Will they impose a significant financial burden on U.S. taxpayers? Are they a danger to the safety of U.S. citizens? These are all fair considerations, and while no system is perfect, the refugee vetting and resettlement process in the United States is very secure, safe, and economically beneficial. However, it is becoming increasingly limited, leading to many individuals being denied the opportunity to obtain refuge in the U.S.

Do refugees decide to come to the U.S. of their own autonomous choice?

No, refugees are considered to be forcibly displaced peoples, meaning that their choice to leave is a matter of personal safety, of life and death. To apply for refugee status, a person must have fled and remain outside their home country. To be eligible for refugee status, they must be able to prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group” and be unable or unwilling to return to their home country (UNHCR). This initial qualification is decided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which then refers the case to a resettlement country (such as the U.S.).

Before traveling to the U.S., refugees must undergo a lengthy vetting process that can take up to 36 months and will continue upon arrival in the U.S. This vetting process includes background checks, security clearances, in-person interviews, and medical clearances run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If the refugee application is rejected during the interview process, it cannot be appealed. If it is accepted, it is only on a conditional basis and is dependent on further medical and security checks. Refugees will also receive a cultural orientation about what to expect upon their arrival in the United States. Finally, the refugee’s case will be designated to a particular refugee resettlement agency and location in the U.S. (there are only 10 approved agencies as of December 2024). Once the refugees arrive, they will receive care from their refugee resettlement agency for 90 days. The resettlement process for refugees in the U.S. is complex and rigorous, but it also serves as a vital lifeline for those fleeing life-threatening circumstances in search of safety and protection.

Do refugees cost U.S. taxpayers lots of money?

No, while refugees who have been in the U.S. less than five years have a median income of about $30,000, that median increases to $70,000 after twenty years. Additionally, studies have shown that refugees end up contributing more than they receive in benefits, paying up to twice as much in the long run. In 2019 alone, the 2.4 million refugees in the United States earned $93.6 billion in income through their contributions to American enterprises and organizations, paid $25 billion in taxes, and were left with $68.6 billion of disposable income, some of which will be spent or invested in U.S. businesses.

Graph created by Mackenzie Hoekstra, Immigration Lab, with data from the American Immigration Council

You may be wondering, if refugees are making so much money, does that mean they are taking jobs from U.S.-born citizens? The answer is no. Research shows that refugees fill three important gaps within the U.S. labor market: entrepreneurship, the service industry, and slightly rejuvenating an overall aging U.S.-born population. In 2019, 19% of refugees in the U.S. were entrepreneurs compared to only 9% of U.S.-born citizens and generated business income of $5.1 billion. Refugees also participate in the workforce at a rate of over 80%, a rate of almost 20% more than the overall national average (at around 60%), and are two times more likely than U.S.-born citizens to work in the service industry. The population of the United States is aging, and it is predicted that over 20% of people in the United States will be 65 or older in 15 years, compared to only 16% in 2016. Furthermore, almost 80% of the current refugee population is of working age compared to only 60% of the U.S.-born population. In conclusion, refugees contribute significantly to the U.S. economy and help address critical labor market needs, making them valuable assets.

Are refugees a danger to the safety of U.S. citizens?

Research demonstrates that the growing presence of refugees and immigrants in U.S. cities does not lead to increased crime rates; in fact, it often correlates with stability or reductions in crime. Studies spanning from 1980 to 2022 reveal a clear pattern: areas that welcome diverse populations experience steady or declining rates of both property and violent crimes.

Lowered crime rates for refugees come in conjunction with successful integration into a local community and job market. Refugees undergo thorough vetting processes, which makes it unlikely for individuals with a predisposition to criminal behavior to receive approval. Furthermore, as refugees are assigned to resettlement agencies, they receive support to help them integrate into their communities and the local job market. These agencies work closely with refugees and can address any inappropriate behaviors at the start of the resettlement process. The evidence clearly indicates that embracing refugees enriches communities and makes them safer.

Possible Impacts of a Second Trump Term on Refugee Resettlement

As you can see, refugee resettlement is a system with many benefits; however, its future is uncertain. Refugee resettlement organizations rely on government funding to resettle and support refugees during their 90-day resettlement period. During the first Trump administration, the cap for refugees allowed was significantly reduced, and subsequently, funding decreased. Despite the proven success of refugee resettlement, Donald Trump has promised to target the system once again under a second term. He may once again push to allow states the right to refuse refugee resettlement, putting an undue burden on certain areas of the country and creating further barriers to integration. Finally, Trump may also target private sponsorship for refugees which allows communities to privately sponsor, fundraise for, and resettle refugees, leading to better integration, economic participation, and a lesser cost for the government and U.S. taxpayers.

A Series of Travel Bans (AKA Muslim Bans)

Like during his first term, he may implement travel bans, further spreading the harmful and misinformed narrative that refugees from Muslim-majority countries have ties with terrorism. At the beginning of 2017, Trump signed an executive order, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which banned entry to the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries–Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–and prohibited entry for refugees from Sudan indefinitely. Six weeks later, he signed another executive order that removed Iraq from the list and halted all refugee admissions for 120 days. Later in 2017, Trump signed a third executive order, which included travel restrictions for two additional countries, Chad and North Korea, as well as stricter vetting procedures. Although many of Trump’s critics dubbed these travel bans as Muslim bans, many of his supporters as well as the Department of Homeland Security, were insistent that these bans were solely focused on addressing and preventing terrorism threats. But the fact is that these bans greatly and unduly affected immigrants and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Source: The Washington Post

The implementation of such bans unjustly put numerous refugees from these countries at risk and tore families apart. It also contributed to a rise in hate crimes targeting Muslim communities in the United States. Additionally, this ban was implemented under the guise of addressing ethnic and religious terrorism threats in the United States. However, the number of arrests for suspected terrorist plots and acts of terrorism in the U.S. has been very small. In fact, threats of domestic terrorism from far-right extremists occur at a higher rate (40% more) than Islamic terrorist events. This policy was ineffective, and it caused great psychological and physical harm to Muslim communities in the U.S. due to increased Islamophobia and hate crimes.

Opting Out of Resettlement

During Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order requiring local refugee resettlement agencies in the U.S. to obtain written permission from their local and state governments to continue resettling refugees. This order would also have allowed state governors to opt their entire state out of refugee resettlement. Although a federal judge blocked this order, Trump has continued to advocate for lower immigration levels and increased local control over resettlement.

Implementing a policy like this in his second term could alienate refugees and place an undue short-term burden on areas willing to accept them. Additionally, opting out of refugee resettlement could have significant negative economic impacts on the longer-term for areas missing out. Before the executive order was blocked, Texas Governor Greg Abbott had opted out of refugee resettlement, a choice that could have cost the state around $17 million. Implementing such restrictive policies could undermine the humanitarian goals of refugee resettlement and hinder economic growth in states with communities that are willing to embrace diversity and support vulnerable populations.

New American Economy Research Fund

The United States has long provided refuge to those fleeing persecution, violence, and life-threatening circumstances. Refugee resettlement has great humanitarian importance and provides a safe, secure, and economically beneficial system that strengthens communities and the workforce. However, this important system faces significant threats. During his first term, Trump’s policies drastically reduced the number of refugees allowed in the United States, perpetuated negative stereotypes, and attacked resettlement infrastructure. The second Trump term could once again target this system through travel bans and restrictions on local resettlement–actions that would harm refugees, the U.S. economy, local communities, and international reputation.

Rather than working to tear down a system that saves lives and benefits our country, there must be a shift in focus on protecting, expanding, and strengthening it. Refugees enrich a society through economic contributions, filling labor shortage gaps, and expanding cultural diversity, all while undergoing one of the most secure and rigorous vetting processes in the world. The United States should move away from narratives driven by fear and misinformation and instead endorse policies that promote the overall well-being of refugees, benefiting the nation’s prosperity as a whole.

Mackenzie Hoekstra is a senior in Sociology student at American University.

Edited by Ernesto Castañeda and Mary Capone

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 19, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized, United States
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 19, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/01/19/understanding-refugee-resettlement/

The Taxing Debate

The Taxing Debate on Migration in the U.S.

By Mary Capone

November 19, 2024

Nearly half of American adults feel that immigration threatens national identity. This proportion has increased in recent years as anti-immigration sentiments have surged in politics and partisan divergence has deepened in rhetoric. The former Trump administration was highly influential in the anti-immigration movement, with much of Trump’s campaigns hinging on xenophobic policies like building a wall on the southern border and ending DACA. Such policies jeopardize the human rights of immigrants in the United States, who make up nearly 14% of the U.S. population. The Biden administration’s handling of immigration has also been criticized by 60% of Americans, indicating that the ongoing conflict over immigration is worsening.

Polls from PBS NewsHour, 2024.

 Why is migration so controversial? Shouldn’t people be allowed to migrate safely?

The answer lies in white supremacy and ‘tax dollars.’

At a 1983 Conservative Party conference, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said, “If the State wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Like many politicians, Thatcher propagated the notion that government spending relies on taxpayers’ money, placing the burden of spending on individuals.

Similar sentiments are not uncommon in the United States. Former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, featured this tagline in his 2018 campaign targeting his opponent: “Tony Evers: Special treatment for illegals, higher taxes for you.” Donald Trump continues to campaign on anti-immigration policies to appeal to Americans who feel skeptical about their tax dollars going to immigrant welcoming programs. Trump’s campaign website highlights “20 Core Campaign Promises to Make America Great Again,” two of which focus on blocking immigration, including the first promise: “Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion.” These arguments are used to justify relatively small government investment in important services that benefit communities of color and immigrants by suggesting they would be an imposition on the ‘taxpayer.’

To understand the historical use of the term ‘tax dollars,’ Camille Walsh analyzed hundreds of letters defending racial segregation addressed to the Supreme Court in the years following the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). One-third of the letters consisted of some language about taxes, taxpayers, or having “paid” for public schools, implying the right to decide whether to keep them segregated. The American ‘taxpayer’ historically represents white individuals, and such language “obscured class divisions among whites and elevated those racialized groups presumed to have higher taxable income to a higher position in claiming citizenship rights.” White individuals like Aura Lee (1956), argued that “poor white taxpayers are entitled to enjoy some all-white places, if they so desire.”

As the term ‘taxpayer’ is historically associated with whiteness, it is used to justify the entitlement of resources concentrated in white communities. Meanwhile, the ‘nontaxpayer’ is meant to symbolize Black and Brown individuals who are perceived not to have “earned” their rights. While this argument is used to exclude people of color from resources, historian James Anderson finds that taxes from predominantly Black communities were at least as much during the time of the Brown ruling, and often higher than those of white neighborhoods. These taxes were often distributed by white school boards into all-white schools prior to Brown. This does not account for today’s common tax evasion of the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. The Treasury Department estimates that there is a $160 billion gap between what the wealthiest 1% of the population should pay and what they actually pay.

Seventy years after the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, politicians, citizens, and the media hold ‘taxpayer dollars’ to be sacred. Similar to the discussions surrounding racial integration in the mid-20th century, immigration represents a battle between the ‘taxpayer,’ or white American, and the ‘nontaxpayer,’ or immigrant. Just as white parents feared sending their children to integrated schools with “much lower standards and run-down facilities than the ones that [they] helped pay for,” many white Americans do not want immigrants to have access to vital resources and fear the use of their dollars on government spending.

Nevertheless, between sales taxes and property taxes, undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes each year. Not only are immigrants taxpayers, but they pay taxes at higher rates than the richest Americans and get less in return. Taxpayer rhetoric is another weapon of othering by separating white U.S.-born individuals from Black and Brown immigrants, regardless of who pays their taxes.

Graph from the American Immigration Council (2016).

A quote from former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan counters concerns about government spending causing a deficit, stating: “There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants.” Similar to banks not lending out depositors’ money, government spending does not use tax dollars for spending. To illustrate this, the U.S. government spent trillions on wars post-9/11 and hundreds of billions to bail out banks in 2008, neither of which were framed as a tax dollar problem. Despite the framing of funding essential services as an attack on individual taxpayers, in reality, it falls within the bounds of federal government spending.

International law considers migration to be a universal right. Immigration control “is a relatively recent invention of states,” according to Vincent Chetail, a professor of international law. The U.S. has a duty to protect the rights of all people and not discriminate based on race, national origin, religion, or any other group category according to the 14th Amendment, and many international treaties it is a party to.

Research indicates that government investments in immigrants have a higher return over time. For example, more educated immigrants earn more and, therefore, pay more in taxes. Fiscal concerns are not based on reality, as immigrants are net contributors to the federal budget. ‘Tax dollars’ are simply a code for white dollars to instill fear and discrimination against vulnerable populations, despite taxation realities.

Mary Capone is a researcher at the Immigration Lab at American University.  

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Immigration
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/19/the-taxing-debate/

Kamala Will Win

This Is Why Kamala Harris Will Win

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 5, 2024

Harris at the packed DC rally in the Ellipse on October 29.

Harris at the packed DC rally in the Ellipse on October 29.

My assessment is that Kamala Harris will win the election. It is not based on the polls or the betting markers, which are not helpful given their very tight margins. Instead, Harris’ big tent, misrepresentation of the primacy of the economy and immigration in surveys, and social trends lead me to believe that Harris will win.

First of all, following the voting trends from the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Trump will not win the popular vote. This matters, as it determines popularity and broad appeal nationwide. Trump has never been appealing to over half of the population as a politician. While Trump was a fresh figure in politics in 2016, and there were some shy voters (given his novel strident and racist anti-immigrant comments), in 2024, he is a well-known entity, and most of his ardent followers are loud about their support, and not shy to say so to pollsters, door knockers, or people calling to get out the vote. Even so, attendance at his rallies and Trump flags outside of houses have decreased from previous cycles. Trump obsesses over crowd sizes, which was one of the indicators of his appeal in 2016. However, the infamous Madison Square Garden Trump rally on October 27 had around 19,500 people in attendance compared to around 30,000 people for Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas, on October 25, and over 75,000 at her rally in Washington, DC, on October 29.

Trump counts on a core base of around 33% of the electorate that holds strong views against immigration, complains about the economy, and will support Trump no matter what. Some more traditional Republicans will also vote for him. Nonetheless, his main campaign strategic imperative was to appeal to moderates, independents, and White suburban women to expand his margin over 50%. His 2024 campaign has not done so; he has focused on animating and mobilizing his core base. Many of his comments and those of his surrogates and supporters have alienated moderates as well as some registered Republicans. He has been more focused on discrediting the electoral process, the media, and his opponents and critics than on appealing to all voters.

In contrast, Kamala Harris has been explicitly open to conservative-leaning independents and even former Republican officeholders, including, but not limited to, Liz Cheney. Many registered Republicans, college-educated men, and many women will vote for her. That should be enough to guarantee her victory. She has done so not by compromising her beliefs and Democratic priorities but by promising to uphold the Constitution and protect democracy.

It is true that an unintended effect of Trump’s hate speech has created a certain increase in support among some Black, Latino, and Asian voters, but that will not be enough to counter the fact that a majority of women across racial and ethnic groups will vote for Kamala Harris as will many men and registered Republicans and independents.

A weakness for Harris lies in the uncommitted voters because of the situation in the Middle East who may vote for Jil Stein or abstain in places like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit, Dearborn, and college campuses. Trump’s election would make things worse in the Middle East, so some will reluctantly vote for Harris and then get ready to continue with their protests and demands for a ceasefire.

The media across the board has obsessed with “immigration” and “the economy” being the main concerns of the electorate and that public opinion favors Trump to handle them. But first of all, objectively, the economy is strong, and asylum-seeking at the border today is at very low levels. Second, and most importantly for elections, when one looks at the polls that are used to make these claims, these are the main issues for less than half of the electorate, and they are the main issues for Republican respondents, who naturally favor Trump’s solutions on these areas. In other words, putting the bulk of the Republican agenda around closing the border is not enough to gain a majority of voters nationwide or even in most swing states. The urban legend about immigrants eating cats shows voters how exaggerated these warnings are. The common claims against immigrants are false, as my book —coming out today— Immigration Realities documents.

Many pundits, consultants, and advisors have been saying that “Harris is weak on the border.” Not only is that false, but my response has been that the immigration obsession will cost Trump the election. Mass deportations are not popular outside of MAGA circles, while a path to citizenship has large levels of support. The Madison Square Garden rally made it clear to many voters and agnostic observers that this was not about undocumented immigration but about creating a White Christian Ethnostate.

There are even some indications (like the exit polls in the Republican primaries in Ohio) that some Evangelicals and religious voters are tired of Trump supposedly representing their views and values. The majority will still vote for him, but less than in previous elections when he has been on the ballot. The same is true for rural and union members. Biden has been a strong pro-labor president. Tim Walz is more familiar with rural White voters than Vance is these days. The majority will vote Republican, but many will vote Democrat. Harris is endorsed by both Liz Cheney and Bernie Sanders. Her appeal and favorability are wide, and she could create an even wider base of support than Obama.

Democratic institutions, freedom of the press, and many other values and institutions are on the line. This is the first election where Trump is on the ballot after January 6, 2021, and the many trials against him. He will not lose all his supporters, but he will lose some.

Recent local and midterm elections have shown that the across-the-board restrictions on abortion and emergency care while pregnant are large motivators to drive women and men to the polls to repeal these propositions and to vote for Democrats. In 2016, most White women supported Trump and not Hilary Clinton. This may be different this time because of the end of Roe vs. Wade. This would be crucial because women are the majority of likely voters, and they were more active in early voting.

Established Latinos of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and South American origin in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New York will make important contributions to the Democratic vote. I predict that many women and new citizens of immigrant origin and some who did not vote in previous elections because of age or lack of interest (thus often not in pollster models of likely voters) will turn out to vote for Harris.

All along, the expectations have been set very highly for Harris, and she has excelled at each challenge, including securing the nomination uncontested, choosing a strong VP candidate,  leading the RNC, speaking at rallies, showing she can be Commander in Chief, bettering Trump at their debate, engaging with the media effectively, she can take questions from the media and answer them thoughtfully, to round it all out she can engage in retail politics with much enthusiasm and empathy.

Trump carries all the media attention and campaign resources from the RNC, and most Republicans down the ballot depend, to a large degree, on his appeal. This does not bode well for them. Furthermore, the Republican-led Congress has been one of the most ineffective in recent memory. Government shutdowns have been adverted, and there have been impactful and popular bipartisan accomplishments such as the Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, and support for Ukraine, but many Republican Congresspeople have voted against these achievements.

All these factors combined seem to indicate that Trump supporters will have a weaker showing than when he lost in 2020, even if we are not in the middle of a pandemic. Kamala Harris has benefited from a fresh, exciting, flawless campaign, drawing all the enthusiasm that had been lacking since Obama’s first presidential campaign.

To recap, the biggest errors in the 2024 election coverage have been the out-of-proportion focus on the economy and immigration as the biggest concerns of all voters when, indeed, these complaints are not fully based on reality and are mainly coming from Republican-leaning voters. Nobody likes inflation, but unemployment is low, and wage and economic growth rates are positive and steady, with a big improvement from 2020. Reproductive health and women’s rights will be more important in motivating people across party affiliations to vote for Harris and Democrats. While the polls are currently very tight, and there is noise that favors Trump (allowing him to repeat the big lie), ultimately, cold analyses of the electorate’s behavior and preferences tell us that Harris is on track to win the electoral college and with wider margins than the polls show.

Ernesto Castañeda, PhD is Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab and Professor at American University.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/05/kamala-will-win/

Political Piñatas

Political Piñatas: How Conservatives Use Latinos to Polarize U.S. Society

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 5, 2024

Many are surprised to learn that some Latinos vote Republican. A larger percentage of Latinos voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. A similar percentage or even more may vote for Trump in 2024. There are many reasons for this, which are often misunderstood by the wider public. I discuss some of them here.

Latinos represent the largest minority in the U.S. at over 65 million and have gained attention as political parties vie for the so-called “Latino vote” as elections are won by tighter margins. This is particularly the case in swing states with large Latino populations. How best to describe the landscape of Latino voters’ preferences remains a question of regular debate. On the one hand, Latinos are still frequently superficially treated as a relatively uniform voting bloc —even if more “up for grabs” today with polling data suggesting gradual shifts in party affiliation. As such, Latinos are often treated as a demographic that can tip the balance in favor of a party. Nonetheless, polls and pundits necessarily flatten the real views of Latinos. This has always been a diverse group. The birth of the term Hispanic aimed to bring together Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans around common causes. Regional differences are key; for example, in the D.C.-metro region, Latinos are diverse and majority Salvadoran; in California and Texas, they are mainly of Mexican and Central American descent; in South Florida, they are a mixture of Cuban, Venezuelan, Colombian, Nicaraguan, among others.

Many recent immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean come escaping failed states and so-called leftist regimes. Many migrants have been directly affected by inequality in their countries of origin. Democratic erosion throughout Latin America and the Caribbean makes it hard for opposition activists and critics of these regimes. Like Eastern Europeans behind the Iron Curtain and Cubans after Castro’s takeover, many recent immigrants see themselves as forced political exiles escaping from authoritarian states that robbed them of their wealth and freedoms. Therefore, in the U.S. they are more likely to identify with ideals of individual freedom and free enterprise.

Trump has also had a polarizing effect on Latinos. Republicans have sought to exploit a process well-documented by scholars: the creation of social boundaries. Trump’s discourse encourages distinctions between “good immigrants” and “good Latinos” in contrast to undocumented “criminals.” Those immigrants with visas and legal permits, higher education levels and family incomes, lighter skin, or who align better with the U.S. geopolitical preferences tend to be more successful than those who do not have immigration papers. This creates hierarchical differences within Latinos. Many U.S.-born and legal Latino immigrants try hard to distinguish themselves from individuals and groups framed as “illegal” and “criminal” to avoid the stigma assigned to those groups.

These social processes create durable inequalities not only between Latinos and non-Latinos but also among Latinos. In public discourse, Latinos are used as proxies and piñatas to polarize Americans further. In turn, some Latinos internalize feelings of inferiority or superiority and may loudly act upon them, adding to the process of polarization. Some Latinos organize against dehumanizing language and build networks of solidarity among Latinos and with other groups. However, a numerical minority such as the White Nationalists and antisemites Nick Fuentes or Enrique Tario, leader of the Proud Boys, are not passive receivers of stigmatizing attacks but become amplifiers of hate speech in exchange for group membership as part of a sometimes-xenophobic White majority. Some who have seen fellow Latinos excluded, targeted, and stigmatized may try to pass as White by attacking other Latinos, further polarizing the country in the process and weakening democratic institutions and minority rights. For these reasons, studying the effects of polarization on Latinos and the role that Latinos have in social polarization is of national importance. 

Latinos can hardly be said to form a cohesive or predictable voting bloc. Latinos do not fit neatly into the racial categories that often orient public political debate, which can lead to simplifications of Latinos’ views. Latinos are relatively less partisan as a group. A Pew Research Center report indicates that less than half of Latinos acknowledge significant differences between political parties, with a large share agreeing that neither party effectively represents their interests. Immigration is motivated by economic success, so access to jobs and better pay are their priority. Most Latinos have papers, so immigration is not an immediate concern for most Latino individuals, but it is a theme full of an emotional load; the immigration struggles of family members are close to their hearts.

An influential narrative regarding political polarization is that the electorate has become increasingly stoked by racial tensions and grievances. In this account, race is an important source of polarization. Latinos’ views are diverse and sometimes distinct from those of other Americans and more often map with those of similar occupations and socio-economic status. The diversity within Latino communities impacts the overall political polarization dynamics in the U.S. Typical analyses of race/ethnicity as a variable in culture war-type political contests do not adequately account for the heterogeneity of Latinos as a group and for the range of variation of their political commitments. National origin, gender, religious affiliation, geographic location, educational attainment, class, media consumption, and generational experience, among others, are impactful factors in identity formation.

Latinos display greater cultural unity than political unity. Latinos are part of their local and larger national political ecosystems. Latinos, despite immigration status, have demonstrated notable unity mobilizing in response to racist anti-immigrant rhetoric from local, state, or national politicians. Research also shows that over time, anti-immigrant policies can contribute to the withdrawal of Latinos from the public sphere. But sometimes there is increased group cohesion among Latinos as a reaction to external group threats such as public hostility toward immigrants and the portrayal in the media of  Latinos as likely to be Mexican, undocumented, and lesser than. A stronger identification as Latino resulting from previous political organizing does lead to higher levels of political participation. In other cases, as Latinos become business owners, upper middle class, and part of mainstream U.S. society, they may become more politically conservative and may try to distinguish themselves from newcomers. Other successful Latinos, who are less insecure about their status, mentor and open doors for others, volunteer, and become philanthropists.

Furthermore, some Latino subgroups are more susceptible to misinformation. The choice of media varies by immigration status and age. Older first-generation Latinos often opt for more traditional media sources such as radio and T.V., and more often in Spanish. Younger Latinos, often second- or third-generation, exhibit a wider range of media consumption, mainly in English and social media. These choices create different media echo chambers, differing attitudes about the meaning of “Latino,” and varying political values even within the same family.

Ernesto Castañeda, PhD is Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab and Professor at American University.

This piece is a revised and shortened version of an unfunded research proposal written for the Carnegie Fellows Program on Polarization in November of 2023.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/05/political-pinatas/

Newer Posts »