This Land Is (Not) Your Land: Race and Ascripted Americanness in the Formation of Attitudes about Immigrants

ABSTRACT

Race consistently patterns anti-immigrant bias. However, it is less clear if all racial groups define “being American” in the same way. This work explores the ways ascribed characteristics that define being “American,” termed Ascripted Americanness, potentially contributes to racial variation in attitudes toward immigrants. Using the 2004 & 2014 General Social Survey (n = 1,774), results show that emphasizing any facet of Ascripted Americanness, particularly US ancestry, correlates to anti-immigrant hostility. Furthermore, the connection between Ascripted Americanness and hostility tends to be more pronounced for white adults compared to black or Latinx adults. Ultimately, these findings reveal that hostility toward immigrants is shaped by the racialization of symbolic boundaries around “being American.”

KEYWORDS:

• Race
• immigration attitudes
• national identity
• Ascripted Americanness

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. I recognize that “American” extends beyond a national construct to a continental meaning. I use “American” to refer to a US-based national identity to stay in line with conceptions of national identity used in previous research on US immigration (policy) attitudes (e.g., Masuoka and Junn 2013) and in the GSS data (“truly American” from the GSS).

2. It is not uncommon to apply a 10% missing benchmark for imputation decisions (e.g., Douds, O’Connell, and Bratter 2019), especially when using secondary data (for a discussion, see Langkamp, Lehman, and Lemeshow 2010).

3. This is the only immigration question I used with the word “legal” preceding immigrants.

4. To use the most categorically detailed measure of family income, I used “income98” (2004 GSS) and “income06” (2014 GSS) to capture family income. I ran supplemental analysis using a simplified, dichotomous measure of family income (ref. less than $25,000) using the “income” variable available in both years that yielded highly similar results to the findings reported in this paper (available upon request).

5. South – AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV; Northeast – CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT; Midwest – IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI; West – AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Raul S. Casarez

Raul S. Casarez is a doctoral candidate in sociology at Rice University. His work explores dynamics of racial and national identity and their influence on the formation of immigration attitudes and the incorporation of immigrants into US society. In addition, he has contributed to the broader body of research that looks at how context, social institutions, and life experiences shape racial identity and racial stratification. His work has appeared in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and Ethnic and Racial Studies.