Immigration Policy Climate and Latino Linked Fate – Comprehensive Study Notes

Introduction to the Study

This study, authored by Edward D. Vargas, Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Juan A. Valdez Jr., investigates the effect of immigration policies on linked fate among U.S. Latino populations. The researchers merged data from the 2012 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS II), which included n = 934 Latinos, with a state-level file tracking immigration laws from 2005 to 2012. A core finding, derived from multinomial logit analysis, indicates that the probability of higher linked fate increases as the number of punitive laws rises, with foreign-born Latinos showing stronger sensitivity to this effect. The study was published in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 2 ext{ (}2017 ext{)}, on pp.35–62, with DOI 10.1017/rep.2016.24.

Context of Anti-Immigrant Legislation

The original Arizona S.B. 1070 bill was critiqued for its “color-blind” language, which stated officers were prohibited from solely considering “race, color, or national origin,” while simultaneously enabling racial profiling. This was further exacerbated when Amendment H.B. 2162 quickly removed the word “solely” and expanded the scope of “lawful contact,” thus broadening police discretion. Hearings for Alabama H.B. 56 similarly demonstrated the racialization of immigrants by conflating “Latino” with “illegal.” This aligns with a broader conceptual backdrop where anti-immigrant rhetoric frames undocumented individuals as an economic burden, criminals, or drug traffickers.

Details of Alabama H.B. 56 and Policy Diffusion

Alabama’s H.B. 56 included several stringent provisions: it mandated police status checks upon stop, detention, or arrest; barred undocumented individuals from state and local public benefits; forbade undocumented students from attending public higher education institutions; and required K-12 officials to collect immigration status data. Despite various court challenges, several states introduced copy-cat bills, indicating a wide diffusion of such policies. The first decade of the new millennium saw a record volume of anti-immigrant policies, a trend largely attributed to demographic changes and Republican political opportunism. This surge in punitive legislation highlighted a research gap regarding its impact on Latino collective identity.

Study Purpose and Historical Context of Punitive Policies

This study specifically aims to establish the link between the surge in punitive laws and Latino linked fate, and also to assess whether beneficial or expansive-rights laws affect identity. Historically, stigmatizing labels like “illegal alien” have been used to socially stratify Latinos, integrate them into the labor force, and deny them full membership in society. Anti-immigrant sentiment, once concentrated in traditional gateway states like California and Arizona, has now spread to new destinations such as Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Examples of earlier punitive steps include Operation Hold the Line in 1993 and Gatekeeper in 1994, which involved border patrol surges. In 1994, California Proposition 187 denied social services and education to undocumented immigrants, and the IIRIRA in 1996 limited benefits for legal immigrants.

Post-9/11 Policies and Rising Anti-Latino Sentiment

Section 287(g) of immigration law allows local police to enforce immigration law, a power the GAO in 2009 found was misused for minor infractions. The H.R. 4437 (Sensenbrenner Bill) of 2005, which would have criminalized unauthorized presence and aid, ultimately failed in the Senate. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized a 700-mile border barrier. Post-9/11, the Patriot Act broadened surveillance, increasing the visibility of undocumented immigrants and leading to the emergence of vigilante groups like the Minutemen. Arizona implemented its own initiatives, including an Official English law and Proposition 300 in 2006, which denied in-state tuition and financial aid. Between 2005 and 2009, proposed immigration bills rose from 300 to 1,500, with enacted bills increasing from 39 to 200. This “restrictist” suite included 18 “English-only” initiatives. The anti-Latino framing, which often associated Latinos with criminality and being “parasites,” served as a cue for identity threat even among non-immigrant Latinos.

Empirical Trends and Collective Identity Formation

Empirical parallels show that anti-immigrant attitudes in the 1990s correlated with an increase in Latino naturalization. The mass protests against the Sensenbrenner Bill in 2006 united diverse Latino groups, fostering a panethnic sense of “sameness.” Collective identity formation was observed through political threat, mobilizing both citizens and non-citizens. While these rallies produced negative immigrant views among non-Latinos, they resulted in more positive Mexican-immigrant views among Latinos. The study theorized that punitive laws would lead to higher linked fate, particularly among the foreign-born population.

Theoretical Foundations of Linked Fate

The theoretical bases for this study include Massey & Sanchez’s (2010) argument that immigrants rapidly adopt a “Latino” identity amidst hostility, and Wiley et al.’s (2014) finding that deportations and restrictionism heighten awareness of marginalized status. A Latino Decisions survey revealed that 36 ext{%} of Latino immigrants know someone who has been deported, and 78 ext{%} perceive an anti-Hispanic climate. Linked fate is defined as the belief that one’s life chances are tied to the group and emerges through shared discrimination or marginalization, as first described by Dawson (1994). High linked fate is associated with elevated political participation, including voting, demonstrations, and donations.

Extension of Dawson's Model and Prior Correlates

Dawson’s model, originally developed for African Americans, suggests that group subordination replaces individual rationality with collective rationality. This research has been extended to Asian populations by Masuoka (2006), Muslims by Barreto et al. (2008), and Latinos by Sanchez & Masuoka (2010). Prior studies have identified several correlates for Latino linked fate, including social integration levels, socioeconomic status (SES) and marginalization, and immigration experiences, with linked fate being higher among foreign-born and Spanish-dominant individuals (Fraga et al. 2006b).

Data Sources and Methodology

The study utilized data from the CMPS II survey, conducted by GfK Knowledge Networks, which surveyed 2,616 total voters with a Latino subsample of n = 934. The survey was fielded from November 16 to 26, 2012, was bilingual, and had a completion rate of 56.3 ext{%}. Panel weights were applied to adjust for CPS demographics and Pew 2010 Spanish-usage data. Respondent locations were geocoded to allow for merging with immigration law counts from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Measurement of Variables and Analytical Approach

Linked fate was measured using a two-step question: first, inquiring about existence (Yes/No), and then the degree (Not at all / A little / Some / A lot). For analysis, these responses were consolidated onto a 1–4 scale, where 1 = No/Not-at-all, 2 = A little, 3 = Some, and 4 = A lot; 59.71 ext{%} of respondents fell into category 1. Independent variables included the count of punitive laws and the count of beneficial laws enacted between 2005 and 2012. Control variables encompassed self-reported skin color (1–5 type scale), past-year discrimination, age, education (1–14 type scale), income (1–19 type scale), gender, nativity, interview language, Mexican origin, and political contact. The primary analytical technique was multinomial logistic regression, clustered by state (FIPS), and performed using Stata 12 software.

Law Trends and Geographical Distribution

Trends in immigration laws from 2005 to 2012 showed that beneficial laws generally outnumbered punitive laws, with the exception of 2009–2010, a period impacted by the Great Recession and the passage of S.B. 1070. Geographical clusters of high punitive laws were found in the Southwest regions (Arizona, Colorado, Utah) and the Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, Virginia). In contrast, beneficial laws were more prevalent in states such as California, Illinois, Washington, Virginia, and Utah.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

Descriptive statistics for the sample (n = 730 after list-wise deletion) indicated a mean linked fate of 1.827, which approximates “A little.” The mean count of punitive laws was 15, with a range from 1 to 41. The mean count of beneficial laws was 27, with a range from 1 to 52. Foreign-born individuals constituted 31.3 ext{%} of the sample, and 23.3 ext{%} conducted their interview in Spanish.

Multinomial Regression Results for the Full Sample

Results from the full-sample multinomial logistic regression showed that each additional punitive law significantly increased the log-odds of reporting “A lot” linked fate compared to “None” (p < 0.05). Similarly, each additional beneficial law increased the log-odds of reporting “A little” linked fate versus “None” (p < 0.05). Experiencing discrimination strongly increased the likelihood of being in the “Some” and “A lot” categories (p < 0.001). Higher income was associated with a decrease in linked fate, and older age correlated with a decrease in the “A lot” category. Women were slightly more likely to be in the “A little” category.

Results for Foreign-Born Latinos

For the foreign-born subsample (n = 253), punitive laws significantly increased the likelihood of reporting “A lot” linked fate (p < 0.001). Beneficial laws had a dual effect: they decreased the likelihood of “Some” linked fate but increased the likelihood of “A lot” linked fate (p < 0.05). For this group, age negatively correlated with the “A lot” category, while income positively correlated with the “A little” category.

Results for U.S.-Born Latinos

Among U.S.-born Latinos (n = 507), punitive laws increased the likelihood of reporting “A lot” linked fate (p < 0.05). Beneficial laws increased the likelihood of reporting “A little” linked fate (p < 0.001). Additionally, respondents of Mexican origin in this subsample showed an increased likelihood of being in the “A little” category (p < 0.05).

Interpretation of Findings

The study’s interpretation highlights that the immigration policy climate influences Latino identity broadly, extending beyond individuals directly targeted by such policies. Both positive and negative laws contributed to shifting individuals from “no” linked fate upwards; however, punitive laws specifically pushed individuals further to the highest level of linked fate. Control findings consistently reinforced the strong link between discrimination and identity, as well as the dampening effects of higher socioeconomic status on linked fate.

Implications and Future Research

The implications of these findings suggest that policies act as social cues, fostering panethnic solidarity among Latinos. This increased linked fate may, in turn, drive more cohesive political behavior, influencing elections and policy preferences. Given the significant size of the Latino population as the largest minority group and the ongoing state-level activism regarding immigration, the political stakes are considerably high. Future research directions should explore alternative metrics for sentiment, such as deportation risk, Section 287(g) agreements, and immigration raids. Longitudinal assessments across different election cycles with varying immigration salience, and interactions with campaign-level mobilization strategies, are also recommended.

Acknowledgements

The study acknowledges support from NICHD T32HD049302 and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy at UNM. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

Appendix Highlights

The Appendix (Pages 25–28) provides additional data. Table A1 details state counts from 2005–2012: states with the highest punitive totals included Georgia (41), Arizona (38), Colorado (36), Virginia (36), and Alabama (33). States with the highest beneficial totals were California (52), Illinois (35), Utah (28), and Washington (28). Table A2 presents variable summary statistics, which were discussed previously. Tables A3 and A4 provide detailed multinomial coefficients specifically for foreign-born and U.S.-born subsamples, respectively.