In this article, I examine the decisions of Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Indiana, and most recently, Texas to pass restrictive immigration omnibus bills and analyze the factors associated with the decision of a state to pass its own immigration law, sometimes without explicit warrant. I focus on state omnibus legislation for two main reasons. First, this type of legislation has been the focus of much media attention. Second, omnibus legislation mimics comprehensive immigration legislation over which the federal government has sole authority. Additionally, I focus on the regional proliferation of restrictive immigration laws, and then bring my attention to the seven states that passed similar legislation. Individually, I examine the roll call votes by each state’s House of Representatives. By looking at immigration politics at a sub-national level, this article provides a more nuanced understanding of the political and ideological work of immigration policies. I argue that contemporary immigration politics at sub-national levels should not only be understood as a story about demographic changes and strictly partisan politics but also a story about the sociohistorical legacies of localities. The historical processes of race, and the differing ways in which places get racialized, influences, beyond partisanship, which representatives voted for and against restrictive immigration legislation. These differences, alongside state-level differences, I argue, continue to affect politics and policy today. Immigration policy has become a vessel through which to contest the politics of race, place, and power.
BlalockH. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
BonnettA. (2005). Whiteness. In AtkinsonD.JacksonP.SibleyD.WashbourneN. (Eds.), Cultural geography: A critical dictionary of key concepts. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BraderT.ValentinoN.JardinaA. (2009, August). Immigration opinion in a time of economic crisis: Material interests versus group attitudes. Paper presented at the APSA, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1449415
10.
CainB.CitrinK.WongC. (2000). Ethnic context, race relations, and California politics. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
CarterD. T. (1996). From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the conservative counterrevolution, 1963-1994. Baton Rouge: Louisana State University Press.
13.
ChavezL. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
EllisonC. G. (2011). The contact hypothesis and attitudes toward Latinos in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 938-958.
16.
GersterP.CordsN. (Eds.). (1989). Myth and southern history: The new south (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
17.
GulasekaramP.RamakrishnanS. K. (2015). The new immigration federalism. New York, NY: Cambrige University Press.
18.
HaS. E. (2010). The consequences of multiracial contexts on public attitudes toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 29-42.
19.
HighamJ. (1955/1998). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860-1925. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. (Original work published 1955)
20.
HoodM. V.MorrisI. L. (1997). ¿amigo o enemigo? Context, attitudes, and Anglo public opinion toward immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 309-323.
21.
HopkinsD. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104, 40-60.
22.
HornsbyA. (2011). Black America: A state-by-state historical encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 255-269). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
LipsitzG. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
33.
LutholtzM. W. (1991). Grand dragon: D.C. Stephenson and the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
34.
MacLeanN. (2008). Southern dominance in borrowed language: The regional origins of American neoliberalism. In CollinsJ. L.Di LeonardoM.WilliamsB. (Eds.), New landscapes of inequality: Neoliberalism and the erosion of democracy in America (1st ed., pp. 21-38). Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
35.
MadisonJ. H. (1986). The Indiana way: A state history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
36.
MasseyD. S.DentonN. A. (1993). American apartheid segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
MohlR. A. (2002). The Nuevo New South: Hispanic migration to Alabama. Migration World, 30, 14-18.
38.
MooreL. J. (1991). Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
39.
NewmanB. J. (2012). Acculturating contexts and Anglo opposition to immigration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 374-390.
40.
NewmanB. J.JohnsonJ. (2012). Ethnic change, concern over immigration, and approval of state government. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12, 415-437.
41.
OliverE. J.WongJ. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567-582.
42.
OmiM.WinantH. (2015). Racial formations in the United States (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
PerezE. O. (2010). Explicit evidence on the import of implicit attitudes: The IAT and immigration policy judgments. Political Behavior, 32, 517-545.
44.
PettigrewT. F. (1958). Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 29-42.
45.
PettigrewT. F. (1959). Regional differences in anti-Negro prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 28-36. doi:10.1037/h0047133
RamakrishnanS. K. (2005). Democracy in immigrant America: Changing demographics and political participation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
RamakrishnanS. K.BaldassareM. (2004). The ties that bind: Changing demographics and civic engagement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
49.
RentfrowP. J. (2010). Statewide differences in personality: Toward a psychological geography of the United States. American Psychologist, 65, 548-558.
50.
RentfrowP. J.GoslingS. D.JokelaM.StillwellD. J.KosinskiM.PotterJ. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 996-1012.
51.
RentfrowP. J.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). A theory of the emergence, persistence, and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 339-369.
TichenorD. J. (2002). Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
TolbertC. J.GrummelJ. A. (2003). Revisiting the racial threat hypothesis: White voter support for California’s Proposition 209. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3, 183-192.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d). Delegation of immigration authority section 287(g) immigration and nationality act. Retrieved from https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/287g
67.
WindersJ. (2007). Bringing back the (b)order: Post-9/11 politics of immigration, borders, and belonging in the contemporary US South. Antipode, 39, 920-942.
68.
WoodardC. (2011). American nations: A history of the eleven rival regional cultures of North America. New York, NY: Viking.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
