This paper considers how the anti-immigrant organization Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) uses discourse about immigrants and immigration to construct and maintain its collective identity. Although previous approaches to collective identity within organizations primarily center the organizations themselves, studies concerned with anti-immigrant discourse instead emphasize how the organizations that use such discourse racialize members of non-white (especially Latinx) groups as “illegal” residents of the United States who threaten the safety and economic well-being of Americans. Drawing from these two literatures to consider how anti-immigrant organizations construct collective identity, this study investigates how ALIPAC uses presentations its opposition and its membership together to shape the collective identity associated with the organization itself. Using a content analysis, 153 documents released by ALIPAC during 2005 and 2018, the study finds that ALIPAC uses a dual racialization process to racialize immigrants as criminal outsiders who, with assistance from political elites, have overwhelmed the United States and white Americans as victims of these criminal outsiders. From this dual racialization, ALIPAC identifies itself as a defender of American citizens against an immigrant invasion. These results illustrate how racialization and collective identity construction are relational processes understood through a group’s presentations of itself and its opposition.
ArmentaA. (2017). Racializing crimmigration: Structural racism, colorblindness, and the institutional production of immigrant criminality. Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 3(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216648714
6.
BenfordR. D., & SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
7.
BersteinM.OlsenK. A. (2009). Identity deployment and social change: Understanding identity as a social movement and organizational strategy. Sociology Compass, 3(6), 871–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00255.x
8.
BiegonR. (2019). A populist grand strategy: Trump and the framing of American decline. International Relations, 33(4), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819852399
9.
BlalockH. M.Jr. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. John Wiley and Sons.
10.
BlochK. R. (2014). ‘Anyone can be illegal’: Color-blind ideology and maintaining Latino/citizen borders. Critical Sociology, 40(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920512466274
11.
BlochK. R. (2016). “It is just sickening”: Emotions and discourse in an anti-immigrant discussion forum. Sociological Focus, 49(4), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2016.1169901
12.
BlochK. R.TaylorT.MartinezK. (2020). Playing the race card: White injury, white victimhood and the paradox of color-blind ideology in anti-immigrant discourse. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 43(7), 1130–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1648844
13.
BlumerH. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607.
14.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (5th ed.). Rowman and Littlefield.
15.
BraccialeR.MartellaA. (2017). Define the populist political communication style: The case of Italian political leaders on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1310–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328522
16.
BraunsteinR. (2017). Prophets and patriots: Faith in democracy across the political divide. University of California Press.
17.
BrownH. E.JonesJ. A.BeckerA. (2018). The racialization of Latino immigrants in new destinations: Criminality, ascription, and countermobilization. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(5), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2018.4.5.06
18.
CachoL. M. (2000). ‘The people of California are suffering’: The ideology of white injury in discourses of immigration. Cultural Values, 4(4), 389–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580009367209
19.
CarterJ. S.LippardC.BraidA. F. (2019). Veiled threats: Color-blind frames and group threat in affirmative action discourse. Social Problems, 66, 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy020
20.
ChavezL. (2013). The Minutemen project’s spectacle of surveillance on the Arizona-Mexico border. In The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation (2nd ed., pp. 135–156). Stanford University Press.
21.
CrespinoJ. (2007). In search of another country: Mississippi and the conservative counterrevolution. Princeton University Press.
22.
DianiM. (1996). Linking mobilization frames and political opportunities: Insights from regional populism in Italy. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 1053–1069. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096308
23.
EbertK. (2021). Ideological legitimacy, color-blindness, and racially conservative organizations. Social Problems, 68(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz053
24.
EngesserS.FawziN.LarssonA. O. (2017). Populist online communication: Introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society,20(9), 1279–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525
25.
FeaginJ. R. (2010). The white racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-framing. Routledge.
Flores-YeffalN. Y.VidalesG.MartinezG. (2019). #WakeUpAmerica, #IllegalsAreCriminals: The role of the cyber public sphere in the perpetuation of Latino cyber-moral panic in the U.S. Information, Communication & Society, 22(3), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1388428
28.
FloresR. D.SchachterA. (2018). Who are the “illegals”? The social construction of illegality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 83(5), 839–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418794635
29.
FoxC.BloemraadI. (2015). Beyond “white by law”: Explaining the gulf in citizenship acquisition between Mexican and European immigrants, 1930. Social Forces,94(1), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov009
30.
GamsonW. A., & ModiglianiA. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In BraungartR. D. (Ed.), Research in political sociology (3, pp. 137-177). JAI Press.
31.
GarcíaS. J. (2017). Racializing “illegality”: An intersectional approach to understanding how Mexican-origin women navigate an anti-immigrant climate. Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 3(4), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217713315
32.
GemignaniM.Hernandez-AlbujarY. (2015). Hate groups targeting unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.: Discourses, narratives, and subjectivation practices on their websites. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 38(15), 2754–2770. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1058967
33.
GoffmanE. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
34.
Golash-BozaT.DuenasM. D.XiongC. (2019). White supremacy, patriarchy, and global capitalism in migration studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(13), 1741–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219842624
35.
HeissR.MatthesJ. (2017). Who ‘likes’ populists? Characteristics of adolescents following right-wing populist actors on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1408–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328524
36.
HuberL. P.LopezC. B.MalagonM. C.VelezV.SolorzanoD. G. (2008). Getting beyond the ‘symptom,’ acknowledging the ‘disease’: Theorizing racist nativism. Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580701850397
37.
JacobsonR. D. (2008). The new nativism: Proposition 178 and the debate over immigration. University of Minnesota Press.
38.
JacobsK.SpieringsN. (2019). A populist paradise? Examining populists’ Twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1681–1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1449883
KrzyzanowskiM., & LedinP. (2017). Uncivility on the web: Populism in/and the borderline discourses of exclusion. Journal of Language & Politics, 16(4), 566-581. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17028.krz.
41.
LaclauE. (1977). Politics and ideology in Marxist theory: Capitalism, fascism, populism. Verso.
42.
LippardC. D. (2016). Playing the “immigrant card”: Reflections of color-blind rhetoric within southern attitudes on immigration. Social Currents, 3(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496515604640
43.
McCluskeyM. (2013). Website content persistence and change: Longitudinal analysis of pro-white group identity. Journal of Information Science, 39(2), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512464148
44.
MilkieM. A.WarnerC. H.RayR. (2014). Current theorizing and future directions in the social psychology of social class inequality. In McLeodJ. d.LawlerE. J.SchwalbeM. (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 547–573). Springer.
45.
MontgomeryM. (2017). Post-truth politics: Authenticity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump. Journal of Language & Politics, 16(4), 619-639. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon.
46.
MuddeC. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition,39(4), 541–563.
47.
NgaiM. M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton University Press.
48.
O’CallaghanD.GreeneD.ConwayM.CarthyJ.CunninghamP. (2015). Down the (white) rabbit hole: The extreme right and online recommender systems. Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314555329
49.
OliverJ. E., & RahnW. M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662639.
50.
OlivieroK. E. (2011). Sensational nation and the Minutemen: Gendered citizenship and moral vulnerabilities. Signs, 36(3), 679-706. https://doi.org/10.1086/657495.
51.
OmiM.WinantH. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
52.
PollettaF., & JasperJ. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283-305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678623.
RayR.BrownM.FraistatN.SummersE. (2017). Ferguson and the death of Michael Brown on Twitter: #BlackLivesMatter, #TCOT, and the evolution of collective identities. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 40(11), 1797–1813. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1335422
55.
RendónM. G.AldanaA.HomL. D. (2020). Children of Latino immigrants framing race: making sense of criminalisation in a colour-blind era. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 46(11), 2407–2425. http://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1486181
56.
RodriguezC. (2017). Fueling white injury ideology: Public officials’ racial discourse in support of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 4(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217708797
RydgrenJ. (2003). Meso-level reasons for racism and zenophobia: Some converging and diverging effects of radical right populism in France and Sweden. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431003006001560
59.
SáenzR.DouglasK. M. (2015). A call for the racialization of immigration studies: On the transition of ethnic immigrants and racialized immigrants. Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 1(1), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214559287
60.
SchwalbeM. (1996). Unlocking the iron cage: The men’s movement, gender politics, and American culture. Oxford University Press.
61.
SchwalbeM.GodwinS.HoldenD.SchrockD.ThompsonS.WolkomirM. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79(2), 419–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.2.419
62.
SnowD. A.Corrigall-BrownC. (2015). Collective identity. In WrightJ. D. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 174–180). Elsevier.
63.
SnowD. A.McAdamD. (2000). Identity work processes in the context of social movements. In StrykerS.OwensT. J.WhiteR. W. (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 41–67). University of Minnesota Press.
64.
SnowD. A.OwensP. B. (2014). Social movements and social inequality: Toward a more balanced assessment of the relationship. In McLeodJ. D.LawlerE. J.SchwalbeM. (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 657–679). Springer.
65.
SnowD. A.RochfordE. B.Jr.WordenS. K., & BenfordR. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581.
66.
SohoniD. (2017). Restrictionist discourse by the numbers: The framing of the demographic impacts of immigration. Social Problems, 64(4), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx027
67.
TreitlerV. B. (2015). Social agency and white supremacy in immigration studies. Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 1(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214560796
68.
TylerK. (2020). Suburban ethnicities: Home as a site of interethnic conviviality and racism. British Journal of Sociology,71(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12738
ValdezZ.Golash-BozaT. (2017). U.S. racial and ethnic relations in the twenty-first century. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 40(13), 2182–2209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1262052
71.
ValocchiS. (2001). Individual identities, collective identities, and organizational structure: The relationship of the political left and gay liberation in the United States. Sociological Perspectives, 44(4), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2001.44.4.445
72.
WaisbordS.AmadoA. (2017). Populist communication by digital means: Presidential Twitter in Latin America. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1330–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328521
73.
WodakR. (2011). Us and them: Inclusion and exclusion – discrimination via discourse. In DelantyG.WodakR.JonesP. (Eds.), Identity, belonging, and migration (pp. 54–77). Liverpool University Press.
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.
