Constructing a Language Problem: Status-based Power Devaluation and the Threat of Immigrant Inclusion

Abstract

Opposition to immigrant inclusion is often grounded in a “Latino threat” narrative that portrays Latino immigrants and their descendants as incapable of assimilation and “undeserving” of the benefits of citizenship. Are nativist reactions to this narrative strongest where immigrants are lagging behind in cultural assimilation, or where they are actually making the greatest gains? Two competing logics of status threat are tested through an analysis of county-level voting returns on California’s Proposition 227. Status politics theories predict higher antibilingual support where immigrants are failing to learn English. In contrast, the status devaluation argument leads to the counterintuitive prediction that support should be highest where language assimilation rates are high. Although we might expect that the claims of the Latino threat narrative would be least appealing where objective circumstances refute them, findings suggest that the resonance of such claims can be amplified in settings where they are furthest from the truth. The theoretical argument advanced helps explain why nativist policies continue to generate broad appeal at a time when immigrants are rapidly assimilating.