"Reasonable suspicion" about tough immigration legislation: enforcing laws or ethnocentric exclusion?

We examined whether support for tough immigration legislation reflects identity-neutral enforcement of law or identity-relevant defense of privilege. Participants read a fabricated news story in which law-enforcement personnel detained a person due to "reasonable suspicion" that he was an undocumented immigrant. We manipulated descriptions of the detainee so that he was either (a) an undocumented immigrant (both studies), (b) a documented immigrant (Study 1), or (c) a U.S. citizen (Study 2) of either Mexican or Canadian origin. Participants in both studies endorsed tougher punishment of an undocumented detainee and rated tough treatment as more fair when the detainee was of Mexican than Canadian origin (regardless of documentation status). Across both studies, the patterns of ethnocentric exclusion-harsher treatment toward Mexican immigrants than Canadian immigrants-were particularly pronounced among participants who defined American identity in terms of assimilation to Anglocentric cultural values (e.g., being able to speak English). Overall, results suggest that people may support tough measures to restrict immigration to defend against symbolic threats-especially threats that cultural "others" pose to Anglocentric understandings of American identity. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes