White Backlash

1. Immigration Drives a Profound White Backlash in U.S. Politics.

A broad backlash could lead to increasingly strict and conservative policy making, shift the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans, and advantage rightward-leaning candidates through out the country.

Demographic transformation. The United States has absorbed nearly fourteen million immigrants since 2000, bringing the total to over forty million. This massive influx has dramatically altered the nation's racial and ethnic composition, with Latinos displacing African Americans as the largest minority group and Asian Americans becoming the fastest-growing. By mid-century, whites are projected to lose their majority status.

Political consequences. This demographic shift, coupled with a pervasive "immigrant threat narrative," has spurred significant anxiety among native white Americans. This narrative links immigrants, particularly Latinos, to various perceived negative outcomes:

• Fiscal: Over-reliance on welfare, healthcare, and educational services, failure to pay taxes.
• Social: Increased crime and disorder.
• Cultural: Decline of traditional American way of life, growing use of non-English languages.
  This widespread concern forms the foundation of a political backlash.

Partisan implications. The Republican Party has increasingly adopted an anti-immigrant stance, while Democratic leaders have offered more accommodating, albeit sometimes lukewarm, support for immigrants. This divergence presents a stark choice for white Americans concerned about immigration, drawing many towards the Republican Party. The book argues that this backlash is not merely about immigration policy, but fundamentally reshapes white partisanship, electoral decisions, and broader policy preferences.

2. White Partisanship Has Dramatically Shifted Rightward Due to Immigration.

In 1980, white Democrats dominated white Republicans numerically. Today the opposite is true.

A massive reversal. Over the last five decades, there has been a slow, steady, and ultimately massive shift in white partisan attachments. In the 1950s, nearly half of all white Americans identified as Democrats, compared to less than 30% identifying as Republicans. This Democratic advantage steadily eroded, and by the 21st century, white Republicans substantially outnumber white Democrats.

Beyond the Civil Rights era. While the defection of whites from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the 1960s and 1970s is often attributed to the Civil Rights movement, this rightward shift continued well after that period. From 1980 to 2010, white Republican identifiers grew to significantly outnumber white Democratic identifiers, a remarkable and often overlooked change in the core contours of U.S. political identity.

Causal link established. This partisan realignment is not merely coincidental with increased immigration. Using individual-level panel data, the research demonstrates that past views on immigration predict future changes in individual partisanship. Similarly, aggregate public opinion on immigration at one point in time predicts subsequent shifts in overall white partisanship, indicating that immigration is a significant driver of this political transformation.

3. Anti-Immigrant Views Directly Shape White Electoral Choices.

As attitudes toward undocumented immigrants become more positive, the proportion of white voters who support Republican candidates drops 33 percent in the presidential election, 38 percent in congressional contests, and a whopping 44 percent in senate elections.

Beyond party affiliation. While party identification is a strong predictor of voting behavior, attitudes towards immigration exert an independent and substantial influence on white electoral choices. White Americans who harbor more negative views of immigrants are significantly more likely to vote for Republican candidates across various elections.

Consistent electoral impact. This pattern holds true across different levels of government and over time:

• Presidential elections: Negative views on undocumented immigrants are associated with a significant decrease in the probability of voting for Democratic presidential candidates.
• Congressional and senatorial contests: The effect is even more pronounced, with anti-immigrant sentiment strongly correlating with increased Republican support.
• Gubernatorial races: Similar trends are observed, indicating a broad electoral consequence.

Robust findings. These findings remain robust even after controlling for a wide array of other factors known to influence voting behavior, including:

• Basic ideology (liberal-conservative self-placement)
• Economic conditions and retrospective evaluations of the president
• Views on war, terrorism, redistribution, and moral issues
• Racial attitudes towards African Americans and Asian Americans
  This suggests that immigration is a distinct and powerful determinant of white voting behavior.

4. Media's "Latino Threat Narrative" Fuels White Political Realignment.

The more that stories focus on Latino immigrants, the more likely whites are to subsequently shift away from the Democratic Party, and the more likely they are to favor independence or the Republican Party.

Profit-driven framing. The news media, driven by profit incentives, tends to adopt an "immigrant threat narrative" that disproportionately highlights the negative aspects of immigration. This narrative often frames immigration around Latino immigrants, focusing on issues like crime, economic costs, and national security, rather than positive contributions or assimilation.

Content analysis reveals bias. A detailed content analysis of New York Times articles from 1980 to 2011 shows a consistent pattern:

• Tone: Nearly 49% of immigration articles were negative, compared to only 12% positive.
• Group focus: 65.5% of articles mentioned Latin American immigrants, significantly more than Asian (26.3%) or European immigrants.
• Issue frames: Economy (25%), immigration policy (20%), and crime (9%) were common, while national security and welfare received less attention.

Shifting macropartisanship. This media framing has measurable effects on white macropartisanship. When news coverage emphasizes Latino immigrants, it significantly predicts a subsequent shift among white Americans away from the Democratic Party and towards the Republican Party or independent identification. This effect is stronger than that of traditional predictors like presidential approval or unemployment rates, and it has become more pronounced since the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

5. Proximity to Latino Populations Intensifies White Conservative Policies and Partisanship.

All else being equal, white Americans who live in states with a sizable Latino population are 5 percent more likely to identify as Republican than those residing in states with few Latinos.

Racial threat in context. The uneven geographic distribution of immigrants means that white Americans experience immigration differently depending on where they live. The "racial threat" hypothesis suggests that larger or rapidly growing out-group populations can lead to increased competition for resources and heightened animosity among the in-group.

Broad political impact. Analysis of state-level demographics reveals that proximity to larger Latino populations significantly influences white political orientations:

• Policy preferences: Whites in states with more Latinos are more likely to hold conservative views on issues like social welfare, healthcare, and criminal justice. For example, they are less likely to support reducing income inequality or expanding healthcare for the poor.
• Ideology and partisanship: A larger Latino population in a state is associated with an increased likelihood of white residents identifying as conservative and Republican.
• Voting behavior: Whites in states with higher concentrations of Latinos are more prone to vote for Republican candidates in presidential and congressional elections.

Divergent reactions. Importantly, this effect is highly specific to Latino populations. Proximity to Asian American populations, by contrast, often shows no significant effect or, in some cases, a liberalizing effect on white political views. This highlights the distinct racialized perceptions and stereotypes applied to different immigrant groups.

6. The Backlash Leads to Less Generous State Policies and Regressive Taxation.

In states with larger Latino populations, public goods provision drop significantly, and funds for welfare, health, and education all decline.

Policy consequences of white backlash. The shift in white public opinion and partisanship due to immigration translates into tangible policy outcomes at the state level. States with larger Latino populations tend to adopt policies that are less favorable to disadvantaged groups, including immigrants and minorities.

Specific policy areas affected:

• Education: States with higher percentages of Latinos allocate significantly less of their budget to K-12 education.
• Criminal Justice: Conversely, these states tend to devote a larger proportion of their budget to corrections and criminal punishment.
• Taxation: States with larger Latino populations implement more regressive tax policies, relying more heavily on sales taxes (which disproportionately affect lower-income individuals) and less on property taxes.

Disinvestment in public goods. This pattern suggests a broader "disinvestment" in public goods and services in areas where the Latino population is larger. As Latinos often comprise a significant portion of the population needing these services, this policy shift exacerbates existing inequalities and creates a less supportive environment for their integration and well-being.

7. Latino Population Growth Can Eventually Counter the Backlash, Shifting Policy Left.

Once the size of the Latino population passes a certain threshold, Latinos should be able to mobilize to influence policy outcomes, and policy should begin to shift back to the left.

Curvilinear relationship. While the initial effect of a growing Latino population is a white backlash leading to more punitive and less generous policies, this relationship is not linear. The book posits a curvilinear dynamic: as the Latino population continues to grow and reaches a critical mass, their collective political power begins to assert itself.

Latino agency and mobilization. Beyond a certain demographic threshold (estimated around 20-25% of the state population), Latinos can mobilize effectively to influence policy outcomes. This counter-mobilization can lead to a reversal of the initial backlash, with policies shifting back towards more pro-Latino and progressive stances. Examples include:

• California's shift: After Proposition 187, as the Latino population grew, the state eventually passed pro-immigrant measures like in-state tuition and drivers' licenses.
• Increased representation: Larger Latino populations lead to more Latino elected officials, who advocate for their community's interests.

Future implications. This curvilinear effect offers a nuanced perspective on the future of U.S. politics. While the short-term outlook may involve continued backlash, the long-term demographic trends suggest that as Latino populations grow, their increasing political influence could eventually lead to policies more aligned with their preferences, potentially mitigating the racial divide.

8. The Political Impact is Highly Racialized, Primarily Targeting Latinos, Not Asian Americans.

What will become apparent is that reactions to immigration are highly racialized. Only one racial group—Latinos—is at the heart of white Americans’ response to immigration.

Distinct racial perceptions. White Americans do not react uniformly to all immigrant or minority groups. The political backlash observed is highly racialized and primarily directed towards Latinos, rather than Asian Americans. This distinction stems from differing socioeconomic positions, stereotypes, and perceived threats associated with each group.

Reasons for differential impact:

• Socioeconomic status: Asian Americans generally have higher socioeconomic status, often surpassing whites in income and education, while Latinos, on average, are less well-off.
• Stereotypes: Asian Americans are often viewed as a "model minority"—intelligent, hardworking, and law-abiding. Latinos, conversely, are more frequently stereotyped as less intelligent, welfare-prone, and associated with undocumented status and crime.
• Citizenship status: A significantly smaller proportion of Asian immigrants are undocumented compared to Latinos, and white Americans often conflate Latino identity with undocumented status.

Empirical evidence. The research consistently shows that:

• Latino context: Proximity to larger Latino populations is strongly linked to conservative policy preferences, Republican identification, and anti-immigrant sentiment among whites.
• Asian American context: Proximity to Asian American populations often has no significant effect, or in some cases, a liberalizing effect on white political views and partisanship.
  This highlights that the "immigrant threat" is largely a "Latino threat" in the minds of many white Americans.

9. Partisan Identity Proves Malleable, Responding Rationally to Immigration Dynamics.

Even those who write forcefully about the immovability and durability of party identification note that major shifts in partisanship occur in one circumstance. When the social groups associated with each party change, mass shifts in partisanship can and have happened.

Challenging the "unmoved mover." Traditional political science often views party identification as a stable, deeply ingrained psychological attachment, largely impervious to change. However, the book's findings challenge this "Michigan school" perspective, aligning more closely with the "Downsian model" which sees partisanship as more rational and responsive to real-world events and issue positions.

Evidence of malleability:

• Aggregate shifts: The dramatic quarterly shifts in white macropartisanship demonstrate that aggregate party identification is far from static.
• Individual changes: Panel data shows that individual attitudes towards immigration predict subsequent shifts in personal partisan affiliation.
• Group imagery: The changing racial composition of the Democratic Party (becoming increasingly nonwhite) alters the social group imagery associated with it, which is a recognized condition for mass partisan shifts.

Immigration as a catalyst. Immigration, as a salient, symbolic, and emotional issue, acts as a powerful catalyst for partisan realignment. When the two major parties adopt increasingly divergent stances on immigration, and the issue becomes linked to core psychological predispositions like ethnocentrism, it can fundamentally reshape long-standing partisan loyalties.

10. Immigration Exacerbates a Deep Racial Divide in American Politics.

The last presidential election, for example, was by some calculations the most racially divided contest in US history.

Widening racial chasm. The combined effect of white Americans shifting rightward due to immigration and racial/ethnic minorities increasingly aligning with the Democratic Party has created a profound and growing racial divide in U.S. politics. This chasm is evident in voting patterns, where the gap between white and nonwhite support for Republican candidates is substantial.

Race trumps other divides. This racial cleavage now overshadows other demographic divisions often considered central to American politics:

• Class: The racial divide in the 2012 House vote was more than twice that of the income divide.
• Education, Age, Gender: Race also significantly outweighs these factors in predicting voting behavior.
  The Republican Party has become largely the party of white America, while the Democratic Party is increasingly the party of racial and ethnic minorities.

Distressing implications. This increasing racial polarization carries distressing implications for the future of U.S. race relations. Instead of moving towards a "post-racial" society, the nation appears to be heading towards greater racial tension and conflict. When political decision-making is primarily determined by race, concerns about inequality, discrimination, and societal fragmentation become paramount, threatening to drive the nation apart.