Are immigrants contaminating Arizona?

By, Adam K. Fetterman
As tensions mount surrounding Arizona’s controversial immigration law, it creeps closer and closer to coming to fruition. Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers of the Associated Press indicate that the law comes in response to growing anger over illegal immigrants causing problems within the state. This is a common argument amongst those that want a tough response to illegal immigration and want to make it more difficult to enter the country. As Billeaud and Myers noted one of community member “He regularly depicts illegal immigration as an ‘invasion’”. On a similar note, it can even be depicted as a contamination.

Along these lines, Landau, Sullivan, and Greenberg (2009) found that when made aware of bodily contamination, people judged immigration more harshly. This type of finding comes from a body of metaphor and embodied cognition work, gaining ground in social psychology. According to metaphor theory, we think about the world around us with thoughts that relate to our physical or bodily experiences. Therefore, in this particular paper, Landau and his colleagues (2009) found that people look at their country like a part of their body, and immigrants are equated to contaminators. When adding to the issue “illegal” immigration and a perceived increase in criminal activity, one can see where the tension in Arizona comes from. However, an issue can arise if these metaphoric or embodied cognition biases individuals’ views of the real problems and shortsighted policies are put in place. This in turn leads to violations of civil rights and prejudice.

Ariz. law comes after years of mounting anger. By, Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers

Landau et al. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20, 1421-1427.

What is the future of immigrant relations in Arizona?

By Kevin R. Betts

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is set to go into effect this Thursday. In short, the law requires that police officers determine the immigration status of individuals who are stopped, detained, or arrested when there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a misdemeanor for legal immigrants to not carry immigration papers. Fearing possible harassment by police and wrongful detention, many legal and illegal immigrants have fled the state since the announcement of the impending law. How might dwindling numbers of immigrants in Arizona impact immigrant relations in the state?

Research in the behavioral sciences has repeatedly shown that to achieve peace between conflicting groups, intergroup contact is necessary. Without frequent intergroup contact, unfounded prejudices often form about members of stigmatized groups. Based on this research, we might expect that fewer immigrants in Arizona will provide fewer opportunities for  contact between immigrants and natural born citizens, and consequently, more unfounded prejudices about immigrants. Indeed, research by Ulrich Wagner and colleagues (2008) provides evidence for this prediction. They looked at how the proportion of ethnic minorities in a region affects opportunities for intergroup contact, and how frequency of intergroup contact affects prejudice. Using East and West German samples, they found that lower levels of prejudice in West Germany could be explained by the larger numbers of ethnic minorities in the region, which allowed for increased intergroup contact.

Will Arizona’s new law be effective in its primary purpose of driving out illegal immigrants? It probably already has, but not without costs for immigrant relations in the state as legal and illegal immigrants flee the region.

Read more:

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

Wagner, U., Christ, O., Wolf, H., van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Schlüter, E., & Zick, A. Social and political context effects on intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes. In U. Wagner, L.R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 195-209). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

View other posts by Kevin R. Betts

“Nativist apoplexy” and the case of immigration legislation

In Arizona a law was recently passed allowing police officers to arrest anyone unable to provide documentation of their immigrant status. Supporters of the law argue that illegal immigrants from Mexico are taking American jobs and bringing in dangerous drug cartel violence. Protesters of the bill argue that such a sweeping law will result in law enforcement abuse and a shift of resources and attention away from the real terrorists/drug traffickers. With this legislation, passed on the eve of world-wide May Day rallies in support of immigrant workers, the emotionally and politically charged issue of immigration has escalated to new heights.

As Daniel Bar-Tal explains in a 1990 Journal of Social Issues article, a perceived threat of one group to another can ignite a cycle of delegitimization and moral exclusion stoked by fear and often escalating to further violence. As a rhetorical strategy, delegitimizing a group separates or “others” them and thus serves as grounds for justifying inhumane treatment. We can see many examples of delegitimization and moral exclusion in the case of the Arizona legislation.

Sparked by fears of drug-related violence and the recent murder of an Arizona rancher — who was known to often help immigrants trying to cross the border by giving them water or alerting border patrol so that they could receive medical assistance — the debate surrounding U.S.-Mexico border control has been fueled by many useful myths. As a recent Washington Post article points out, illegal immigration is a complex issue and the main talking points (immigrants take jobs from Americans, illegal immigrants cause crime) are simply not true. But from the standpoint of politics and debate, these myths are very useful because they allow for justifying differential treatment and harsh legislation such as the law that was just passed. Deutsch (1990) further explains the psychological underpinnings of moral exclusion and dehumanization and the social conditions that contribute. Economic depression, for example, can lead to a sense of relative deprivation and an increase in alienation/isolation attitudes. Political instability, authoritarian government, violence, and lack of social bonding can also lead to moral exclusion.

While it is clear that a number of psychological and social forces are merging and a political debate ensuing, there are very real reasons why the current administration may not be able to hold off immigration legislation until the next year. As Bar-Tal explains, “There is little doubt that the distance between delegitimizationof this intensity and behavioral harm is very small.” In other words, legislation such as the one passed in Arizona, may lead to even more violence and less productive border relations. Or, the delegitimization of one group could quickly spread to other groups and become aimed at all immigrants, legal or not.

Five Myths About Immigration. The Washington Post.

If Only Arizona Were The Real Problem. The New York Times.

Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues.

Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological Roots of Moral Exclusion. Journal of Social Issues.

Arizona’s Punishment Doesn’t Fit The Crime: Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rate Over Time.

“Me a bigot? No way, I hate them!”

After being caught calling one of his own Labour supporters a bigot when he thought he was off microphone, Gordon Brown has been apologizing and recanting his statement at every opportunity. His reference to Gillian Duffy as “a sort of bigoted woman” came after her comments about Eastern European immigration, something many in Britain feel is a growing problem. Of course, the news has focused on the aftermath of Brown’s gaffe and his attempts to apologize to Duffy. Meanwhile, Duffy seemed completely shocked that anything she said would have implied she was prejudiced. What the news has not focused on is whether or not she really is a bigot. Few people would agree they were in fact a bigot, despite their prejudicial views, because nobody ever thinks they are one.

Past research (using implicit measures and physiological responses) has shown that most people are prejudiced to some extent. But, most people, even those with extreme prejudices, deny such attitudes. According to recent research highlighted in the Journal of Applied Psychology, this may be because exposure to representations of prejudice in culture promotes the self-belief that individuals are not prejudiced. In a series of experiments, the authors exposed American participants to bigot stereotypes (through either priming or more explicit media representations) and found that those participants exposed rated themselves as less prejudiced than those who were not exposed beforehand. The authors suggest that this is due to cues of prejudice providing targets for downward social comparison. So, if exposure to bigot cues can lead people to believe they are less bigoted, then perhaps all the campaign focus on anti-immigration and the recent surge in support for racist parties like the BNP will lead other British people to think they are less bigoted than they actually are.

Read more: But I’m No Bigot: How Prejudiced White Americans Maintain Unprejudiced Self-Image

Read more: The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism

Ouch! Is this what asylum feels like?

Uday Hattem al-Ghanimi represents a growing population of Iraqis who have sought political asylum and resettled in the United States after the Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. However, as the New York Times reported on Thursday, like many accomplished immigrants from other countries, Uday and his family have not been met with the welcome and opportunity for which they had hoped or were led to expect. With the wounds of war still tender, Iraqis are struggling to support themselves and their families as they face alienation in the job market and ostracism from society.

A social psychological perspective of the Iraqi experience in the United States elucidates the hardships that Iraqis are facing. Williams (1997, 2007) emphasized the profound negative effects of ostracism on individuals. Five minutes of ostracism due to exclusion from a ball-tossing game resulted in decreased self-esteem and feelings of helplessness, among other negative outcomes. Such negative outcomes are exacerbated with long-term ostracism. Williams notes that the effects of ostracism are initially felt much like physical pain, possibly reflecting overlapping neural circuitry. It seems Iraqis may have traded potential pain due to warfare for certain pain due to ostracism.

The New York Times: Iraqi Immigrants Face Lonely Struggle in U.S.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death.

Keeping Britain British?

The United Kingdom has just elected its first Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the British National Party (BNP).

This far-right political party, with its ‘whites only‘ membership restriction and goal of ‘keeping Britain British‘, is widely regarded as having policies that promote racial intolerance. Consequently it is condemned both by prominent mainstream politicians, as well as anti-fascism activists, with employers such as the police banning their staff from being members.

The election success of such an extremist organisation is attributed to a public loss of confidence in the major political parties over their handling of concerns such as immigration, the impact of the recession, and the recent expenses scandal involving Members of Parliament (MPs).

The widespread horrified reaction to the BNP’s newly gained credibility mirrors that seen previously when, contrary to the popular stereotype of the violent thug, a number of ‘respectable’ professionals were revealed to be amongst its members.

News report from the BBC

News report from the Guardian

Sapountzis, A. (2007). Towards a Critical Social Psychological Account of National Sentiments: Patriotism and Nationalism Revisited

Krueger, J. I. & DiDonato, T. E. (2008). Social Categorization and the Perception of Groups and Group Differences

Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Rath, R. (2008). Making a Virtue of Evil: A Five-Step Social Identity Model of the Development of Collective Hate