In October, President Biden announced he would pardon all prior federal convictions for simple possession of marijuana, urged governors to do the same under state laws, and launched a review of how marijuana is classified under federal law. Given long-standing links between criminalization and immigration enforcement, this announcement is likely to boost public support of immigrants. In his announcement, Biden noted that people of color have been disproportionately arrested, prosecuted and convicted of marijuana offenses. In part, this is by design. U.S. drug laws have been deliberately crafted to criminalize and incarcerate people of color. More specifically, marijuana was criminalized to target Latino immigrants, particularly Mexicans.
Are Donald Trump's immigration policies too tough, not tough enough, or about right?
This paper compares nationalist attitudes among Whites, Latinos, and African Americans. The research on nationalism and national attachment draws varied conclusions about how race and ethnicity structure such attitudes; some find that Whites have the strongest views, while others see more similarities than differences. Using the General Social Survey of 2014, we examine three separate dimensions of nationalism: American nationalism, American national identity, and American national pride. We test for differences across race and ethnicity as well as how such attitudes structure opinions about immigrants. Despite some expectations in the literature that views might vary by group, we generally find (albeit with some complexities) “minimal effects” of race and ethnicity. Latinos, Blacks, and Whites agree with the three nationalism measures at similar levels, despite the very different national histories of each group. This is consistent with work finding “a great deal of consensus on the norms, values, and behaviors that constitute American identity” (Schildkraut 2007. “Defining American Identity in the Twenty-First Century: How Much “There” Is There?”.” The Journal of Politics v69 (3): 597–615, 605). In addition, while nationalism is associated with immigration opinions, such effects are predominantly among Whites and African Americans and relatively weak for Latinos.
The Latino politics of marijuana legalization have revolved around drug enforcement arrest rates and incarceration of Latino youth, as well as drug trafficking across the United States–Mexico border. Drug laws have historically been used disproportionately against Latinos (and Black Americans), and the historic link between Mexican immigrants and the flow of marijuana across the United States–Mexico border has been used to criminalize Latino immigrants, including candidate and then president Donald Trump. As a result, debates about cannabis liberalization have generated speculation about how such legal changes might affect attitudes toward immigration. The creation of recreational marijuana markets in several states since 2014 allows for testing of these hypotheses using state-level data. Here, we explore data on attitudes on marijuana legalization and immigration over time, as well as national samples, to compare immigration attitudes of residents from states where marijuana is legalized for recreational use to others where it remains a controlled, illegal drug.
In this dissertation, I examine how political participation is shaped by the avoidance and acceptance of risks (better known as “risk attitudes”). This relationship, I posit, influences Latino and Black political behavior as it helps to account for advantages, disadvantages, and differences in engagement compared to the white majority. First, I present the emergence of risk attitudes from prospect theory and its contribution to understanding human behavior. I develop a hypothesis for racial and ethnic minority differences in risk attitudes based on socioeconomic disadvantages and demographic and political differences with Whites. I uncover that differences in underpinnings of risk attitudes are unique to Latino political efficacy, whereby risk accepting Latinos are more confident about their influence on politics than White peers. Second, I raise the puzzle that while non-electoral participation is costlier than voting, Blacks and Latinos report being (or desiring to be) as involved or more than Whites, finding that risk acceptance emboldens minorities to report high participation and that the effect is strongest for Latinos without prior experience in the activities. Third, I establish with voter validation records that voting is also associated with risk attitudes but in the opposite direction – risk averse, not risk accepting respondents were more likely to have voted. Risk acceptance yields Latino voting gaps with Whites, I observe, while the gaps are bridged with White peers under risk aversion. I also find that the relationship between risk attitudes and voting is conditional on campaign contact, as only contacted risk averse Latinos voted more than risk accepting counterparts. I conclude that mobilization efforts encouraging Latino voting may spend resources more efficiently by screening for risk attitudes, targeting the risk averse with traditional methods, and changing messaging for the risk accepting to loss-oriented frameworks. These findings suggest avenues for increasing the diversity of voices in civic and electoral arenas of democracy, as risk attitudes might be primed to supplement traditional forms of political mobilization.
Significant research indicates that attitude change is often a product of partisan learning (Green, Palmquist, Schickler 2004; Lenz 2011). As the party system continues to rearrange around issues of race and immigration, it may be that (on race-related issues) voters are learning more based on race/ethnicity and not on party. We evaluate the partisan learning model versus a racial-learning model with regards to public opinion on sanctuary cities among survey respondents in California and Texas – two states that have experienced extensive recent debate on the issue. After the rise of Trump and his connection with opposition to sanctuary cities, we show that partisanship is much more predictive of attitudes on sanctuary cities in 2017 versus 2015, whereas findings for racial/ethnic learning are not so forthcoming. Implications are discussed.
Undocumented immigrants who have grown up in America, often called DREAMers, generally grow up unaware of their lack of legal status, thinking of themselves as equal and legitimate members of the polity—as Americans. Scholars have noted the high levels of political activism of DREAMers, often at personal risk of detention and deportation. Negrón-Gonzales (Lat Stud 12(2):259–278, 2014) attributes this activism to the tension between their legal (juridical) and lived (subjective) identities; Abrego (Law Soc Rev 45(2):337–339, 2011) attributes it to their sense of belonging and their awareness of existing or possible rights. Here, using a set of 101 in-depth semi-structured interviews, we build on that scholarship to link undocumented Latino youth activism to their need to maintain a positive social identity, and to DREAMers’ powerful psychological identities as Americans. The perspectives shared in those interviews provide important insights into identity formation and identity stickiness and the “undocumented and unafraid” movement.
This paper uses the Latino Immigrant National Election Study (LINES) to better understand the relationship between religion and immigrant political and civic engagement. Over the last half century, both American religion and the immigration landscape have changed in important ways. The LINES, which includes a number of religious questions from the American National Election Study and a rare focus on Latino newcomers, provides the opportunity to better understand the contemporary relationship between the two. We find that measures of religious belongings, beliefs, and behaviors (the Three Bs) are not generally associated with the civic and political engagements of Latino immigrants. We posit that such null results may be explained by the varying religious experiences of immigrants—some developing bridging social capital through religious institutions, but others experiencing what might be called segmented religious assimilation.
MA Thesis: The fate of undocumented youth recently overwhelmed political dialogue on immigration and its effect on those individuals remains largely unstudied. This paper extends the scope of political information analyses from potential voters to undocumented childhood arrivals. Quantitative observations come from in-depth qualitative interviews in Los Angeles County, California and the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas. It finds important regional differences in the ability of immigration status to motivate cognitive engagement of politics. It questions the threat hypothesis, as highly politically knowledgeable DREAMers appear to reside in supportive environments. Such places help equip them with the ability to attribute blame and channel anger or enthusiasm. Findings suggest profound dissimilarities in the potential for political participation if and when DREAMer Latinos gain access to citizenship.
In 2010, as Californians debated the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, policymakers and analysts debated the possible impacts on the state’s large Latino population. What would be the likely impact on the rates of arrest and incarceration of Latino youth, who are disproportionately charged with drug-related crimes (as are African American youth) compared to their White counterparts? Were such likely changes a good reason to vote for the proposal? Others debated the possible impact on immigration policy. Debates about border control and what to do about undocumented immigration are often linked to the problem of smugglers bringing marijuana across the U.S.-Mexican border. Thus, decriminalization had the potential to soften views regarding the negative impact of undocumented immigrants and possibly move immigration politics forward. In this chapter, we open with the history of marijuana laws, illustrating the longstanding link to immigration and Latino politics. We then review contemporary policy debates regarding Latinos, Proposition 19, and immigration and criminal justice policies. Text