Anti-immigrant sentiment particularly against Mexicans in the United States has had a dramatic influence on the lives of immigrants and on how they perceive the host society. Today, little research has addressed the extent to which this enmity has affected the mental-well being of immigrants. Based on 30 in-depth interviews in Houston this study investigates the degree to which nativism contributes to depression among Mexican-origin immigrant women. The findings reveal that undocumented status was salient and contributed to symptoms of depression. Additionally, my respondents revealed perceptions of intra-ethnic conflict among Mexican Americans. This thesis further explores how segmented assimilation theory can be expanded to better understand the complexities and nuances that Mexican immigrant women endure taking into consideration immigration status, racial/ethnic identity, and the structural barriers which plays a major role in their integration and mental health well-being.

This project examines nativism as an important historical process in the development of American cultural identity, following an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on the emergence of anti-immigrant discourse on the Internet. My aim is to analyze how anti-immigrant groups, despite access to new technologies, continue to reify stereotypes and representations of Latin American immigrants within a longstanding tradition of nativism. In particular, I explore the impact of strategies employed on the websites of the anti-immigrant groups Border Guardians, Mothers against Illegal Aliens, American Border Patrol, Justice for Shawna Forde, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, and Minuteman Project to circulate anti-immigrant rhetoric on the World Wide Web. Following the work of cultural scholars Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault, as well as new media scholars Andrew Shapiro, Manuel Castells, and Sherry Turkle among others, I argue that nativist groups utilize multiple hyperlinking techniques to "disintermediate" their rhetoric, resulting in a closed ideological environment I call a "hyperverse." The nativist hyperverse effectively isolates itself from competing perspectives on immigration that could challenge its discourse, largely by framing itself as what Castells refers to as a "counter power" movement against hegemonic forces. Furthermore, I build upon the work of Arjun Appadurai to position the hyperverse within a larger anti-immigrant "mediascape" that permeates established media, such as print and television, and which in turn inflects public and political discourse. I maintain that the processes that create the hyperverse also render it immune to rupture from competing perspectives circulating in new or traditional media. Nevertheless, I cite popular movements, as described by Sasha Costanza-Chock, formed through communications technologies that connect and mobilize youth in opposition to hegemonic anti-immigrant ideologies. I conclude by proposing that new media technologies be viewed not merely as a vehicle that automatically privileges truth, but as tools for creating narratives that must be regarded with a critical approach. I conclude with a call to twenty-first century educators to develop new pedagogical methods to teach students to seek and analyze sources of online texts in order to become empowered consumers and producers of information.

Immigration and its impact on aggregate welfare state preferences and welfare state reform has been the subject of numerous academic and political debates. Despite prolonged attention to these issues, however, empirical research has yielded mixed results concerning what effect, if any, immigration has the structure and generosity of the welfare state. This issue is further exacerbated by the absence of concerted conceptual cross-germination between the various theoretical literatures that examine immigration's effect on various social, economic, and political outcomes, making it difficult to identify the mechanisms through which immigration may shape the welfare state. To address these issues, I draw on social psychological research, theories of the welfare state, research on radical right-wing parties, and case studies from the United States to argue that changes in both the volume and characteristics of immigrants entering Western Europe might: 1) undermine the cross-class alliances necessary for maintaining the welfare state, 2) reduce public support for welfare programs, and 3) provide politicians on the far-right with a symbolic resource that can be used to justify cutting/restructuring welfare state programs believed to benefit immigrants. Empirical examinations of these arguments using a wide range of data sources indicate that immigration may be directly and indirectly related to welfare state spending. With regard to the former, the data indicate that the influx of migrants from less-developed countries into social and Christian democratic countries has contributed to rising program demand and corresponding increases in expenditures on more reactive welfare state programs (i.e., unemployment benefits). With regard to the indirect impact of immigration on the welfare state, analyses of voting and public opinion data demonstrate that changes in immigration have contributed to the electoral success of predominantly neoliberal, far-right, nationalist parties and contributed to rising levels of anti-immigrant sentiment over time. These factors, in turn, resulted in: 1) declines in popular support for those social and Christian democratic parties that are dedicated to the maintenance and/or expansion of the welfare state, and 2) reductions in average levels of support for welfare state programs designed to address issues of unemployment, making the welfare state more vulnerable to future retrenchment.

abstract: Nearly 11 million immigrants in the United States, three-quarters of which are Latino, lack legal authorization to live and work in the country; nonetheless, the majority of these individuals have resided in the U.S. for a decade or more and have profound social, emotional, cultural, and economic ties to the country (Passel & Cohn, 2018). Despite being deeply embedded in their communities, the dominant policy response involves increased immigration enforcement and advancing a hostile socio-political context (Gulasekaram & Ramakishnan, 2015). This policy approach comes at a great cost to immigrant and Latino communities throughout the U.S. and is largely ineffective. Accordingly, many advocates and stakeholders, including the National Association of Social Workers (2017), argue for policies that integrate “unauthorized permanent residents” (Martínez, Slack, & Martínez- Schuldt, 2018). The primary purpose of this study was to understand strategies that can be leveraged to build support for integrationist policymaking. Among a sample of U.S.-born white college students (n=708), intensive, community, and college contact with Latino immigrants and people of color were assessed; the relationships between intergroup contact and support for integrationist policymaking were examined. To better understand the contact-policy attitudes relationship, the deprovincialization hypothesis of the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) and the Latino threat narrative (Chavez, 2013) were merged and tested as a serial pathway by which contact and policy attitudes may be related. Findings revealed intensive and community contact with Latino immigrants and people of color related to more support for integrationist legislation. In most cases, these effects were direct as well as indirect through the ethnocentrismthreat attitudes pathway. Ethnocentrism fully accounted for the relationships between intensive and community intergroup contact and threat attitudes. These findings have several implications for intervention. First, in the long-term struggle for immigrant integration, intergroup interaction between whites and people of color should be promoted, and the importance of casual intergroup contact should not be dismissed. Interventions that reduce social segregation are needed, as well as efforts to effectively harness the ethnic-racial diversity that presently exists. Cross-group exposure interventions that aim to overcome ethnocentric tendencies should be implemented. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Social Work 2019

Background. This thesis directs attention to how attitudes towards immigrants evolve under different contextual circumstances. Unlike previous research that primarily focuses on contextual factors related to the availability of material resources, the included studies explore the influence of less tangible aspects of our surroundings, brought together under the term immaterial contexts. Three kinds of immaterial contexts are in focus: political representatives’ use of nationalistic rhetoric, the parliamentary presence of the extreme right, and the religious context. The studies examine the direct effects of these contexts, but also how individuals’ beliefs, loyalties, and experiences interact with the contextual factors to shape peoples’ attitudes. Methods. The thesis takes a comparative approach where countries serve as the main contextual unit. Data on attitudes and other individual features are gathered from the European Social Survey 2002-2012. To be able to analyze these data in the same model as used for country-level data, the thesis applies multi-level models. Results. The findings support a theoretical expectation that immaterial contexts influence anti-immigrant attitudes. How people perceive immigrants and immigration can be traced to political and religious aspects of their surroundings. Also, it is found that individuals are not passive recipients of contextual influences as their reactions depend on their preferences and experiences. While political representatives influence anti-immigrant attitudes, these effects are strongly conditional both on features of the representatives themselves, and on characteristics and experiences of individuals. For example, individuals respond to political rhetoric by traditional political parties but are not influenced by the same kind of message if conveyed by a party belonging to the extreme right. Conclusion. The thesis is an attempt to widen the very notion of contexts in empirical research, and as such, it is a contribution to the literature on anti-immigrant attitudes. It shows that anti-immigrant attitudes depend not only on material circumstances, but also on immaterial circumstances tied to the political and religious arena. Further, the thesis demonstrates how combining the theoretical perspectives of group threat theory and framing theory implies greater possibilities to conceive of the link between contexts and attitudes, as well as improved theoretical tools to understand when and why such effects do not occur. It signals that research on immaterial contexts is necessary to further advance the comparative scholarship on anti-immigrant attitudes and reach a deeper understanding of how such attitudes emerge and evolve.

abstract: This dissertation focuses on the incorporation of twenty first century mixed-status families, living in Phoenix, Arizona and Central Mexico. Using a combination of research methods, chapters illustrate patterns of immigrant incorporation by focusing on well-being, community reception, and national identity. First, results of mixed-method data collected in Phoenix, Arizona from 2009-2010 suggest that life satisfaction varies by integration scores, a holistic measure of how immigrants are integrating into their communities by accounting for individual, household, and contextual factors. Second, findings from qualitative data collected in Mexico during 2010, illustrate that communities receive parents and children differently. Third, a continued analysis of qualitative 2010 data from Mexico, exhibits that both parents and children identify more with the U.S. than with Mexico, regardless of where they were born. Together these chapters contribute to broad concepts of assimilation, well-being, community reception, and national identity. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Justice Studies 2016

abstract: Using integrated threat theory as the theoretical framework, this study examines the impact of perceived realistic threats (threats to welfare) and symbolic threats (threats to worldview) on anti-immigrant sentiment among a nationally representative sample in the U.S. Analysis of the antecedents of prejudice is particularly relevant today as anti-immigrant sentiment and hostile policies toward the population have risen in the past two decades. Perceived discrimination has also become salient within immigrant communities, negatively impacting both mental and physical health. Using logistic ordinal regressions with realistic threat, symbolic threat, and immigrant sentiment scales, this study found that both realistic and symbolic threats increased participants' likelihood of selecting a higher level of anti-immigrant sentiment, suggesting both are predictive of prejudice. However, symbolic threats emerged as a greater predictor of anti-immigrant sentiment, with an effect size over twice that of realistic threats. Implications for social work policy, practice, and future research are made. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.S.W. Social Work 2014

Magister Psychologiae - MPsych / In the context of recent attacks that occurred against foreign nationals (migrants) in South Africa, this study sought to explore attitudes toward migrants and immigration among a sample of students at the University of the Western Cape. Previous studies in South Africa and elsewhere have suggested that in most countries, nationals tend to hold negative attitudes toward migrants and express protectionist attitudes toward migration policies. Research around students' attitudes toward migrants and immigration has shown similar trends. The present study employed a sample survey design to investigate: a) Students' attitudes toward African migrants, b) Students' attitudes toward migration into South Africa and c) Degree of contact that students have with African Migrants. A convenience sample of 183 undergraduate psychology students was used. Students‟ age ranged between 18 and 38 years of age (x = 20 years). Data was collected using a questionnaire comprising of 27 questions related to attitudes towards migrants and immigration as well as a section on contact with migrants. The results show that students showed exclusionary attitudes in terms of immigration, limited contact with migrants and negative attitudes toward African migrants. However, attitudes toward migrant‟s rights were positive. The implications of these findings are discussed.

This thesis seeks to challenge the dominant modes of conceiving the empirical link between citizens’ negative perceptions of immigrants and electoral support for Western European radical right parties, and in doing so, to offer a deeper understanding of the dynamics of radical right voting behavior based on an analysis of radical right parties’ online activities. Despite radical right parties' great popularity and important presence online, little scholarly attention has been paid to their activities in an online space. Accordingly, most empirical research on radical right voting behavior has been conducted in an offline context, ignoring the potential role the Internet plays in connecting radical right parties and voters. Building on Norris’s demand-supply framework, I consider the largely ignored factor, citizens' online activities, in my quantitative model and, ultimately, develop formal links between citizens’ anti-immigrant attitudes and electoral support for radical right parties conditional on their level of Internet usage. Thereby, I aim to provide an answer to the following research question: Does citizens’ Internet usage moderate the relationship between anti-immigrant attitudes and radical right voting? Using data from the 9th wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), I test whether voters' high level of Internet consumption strengthens the positive relationship between anti-immigrant attitudes and electoral support for radical right parties in eight Western European countries. The results show that my expectations are strongly supported at the cross-national level and partially confirmed at the national level by Belgium, Germany, and Italy. My findings hold promise for future work in designing more elaborate and practical voting models.

By 2010, forty-six years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two years after the election of the nation's first Black president, Barack Obama, the U.S. had seemingly become a post-racial society. However, in 2010, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was under fire and challenged as racially discriminatory. While the bill was popular among white Arizonians, critics charged that SB1070 could facilitate the racial profiling of all Latinos in state law enforcement officers' efforts to check the legal status of those they suspect are undocumented. Analyzing 70 recordings from the Arizona house floor, press conferences, and television interviews during 2009-2012, I investigate how elected and public officials discuss their support for this contested legislation. Proponents of the bill largely used color-blind maneuvers in response to questions concerning racial profiling and Latinos, but simultaneously constructed racialized undocumented immigrants as criminals and economic burdens. Consequently, political supporters of SB 1070 engaged in a racial discourse evoking an implicit white injury ideology that positioned whites as injured by the presence of racialized immigrants, while all Latinos were discursively constructed as immigrants irrespective of their citizenship status, and therefore constructed as outside the (white injured) citizenry.