Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals are motivated to support/oppose policies and politicians that benefit/harm members of their ingroup as a means of protecting their social status. Since the Republican Party’s rhetoric against immigrants in recent decades has often been viewed as an assault upon those of Latinx descent, it is not surprising that strong majorities oppose restrictionist immigration policies and support the Democratic Party. However, the existing literature has overlooked why a sizeable minority of Latinx voters express support for restrictionist immigration policies and the politicians who espouse them. Our analysis of Latinx voters with the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES) demonstrates that the degree to which individuals prioritize their US American identity over their Latinx identity has a significant influence over support for conservative immigration policies and GOP candidates. This relationship emerges above and beyond partisanship, ideology, and other key explanatory factors. Such attitudes likely represent an individual social mobility strategy in which members of a social group attempt to “pass” as a member of a higher-status group. Prioritizing a US American identity, supporting the Republican Party, and expressing hostility toward the interests of undocumented immigrants are a means of distinguishing themselves from a social group that has become increasingly associated with negative stereotypes. In contrast, those who are unwilling or unable to make this transition are likely pursuing a collective social mobility strategy (e.g., linked fate) whereby they attempt to enhance their individual status by elevating that of the entire social group.

No abstract

ObjectiveDonald Trump's sustained emphasis on the negative impact of immigration policies for personal economic conditions necessitates reevaluating the influence of the latter on the former. We assess the interaction between income and individual economic anxiety on immigration attitudes.MethodsMultivariate analysis of the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Study survey data.ResultsAfter controlling for conventional explanations and standard political covariates, those who share an income bracket with foreign‐born workers and also expressed individual economic anxiety were significantly more likely to express negative attitudes toward immigrants in 2016, but not in 2012.ConclusionThe discrepancy between the results in 2016 and 2012 is partially attributed to the different rhetorical approaches toward immigration policy adopted by Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. Whether the 2016 results represent an isolated anomaly or emerging trend may depend on the rhetorical choices of future presidential candidates.

Donald Trump's campaign slogan to “Make America Great Again” captivated the imagination of millions of Americans by contextualizing disparate sources of social resentment as emblematic of a broader story of American decline. Employing a “traditionalist civil religious jeremiad,” Trump called for a reassertion of American exceptionalism, and extolled a romanticized golden age predating transformative social changes (e.g., sexuality, gender roles, racial equality). As such, his rhetoric legitimized the defense of white male privilege as a vital component of this restoration. While this use of civil religious themes emboldened those who harbor prejudicial views, it alienated others who interpret such rhetoric as an assault on the soul of the nation. Relying on a unique module within the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we demonstrate that adherence to the tenets of American civil religion significantly exacerbated the effects of symbolic racism and modern sexism on support for Trump.

Background While the “machismo” media narrative explaining Donald Trump's electoral support among Latinxs has some intuitive appeal, the relative dearth of scholarship on the influence of sexism on Latinx political attitudes precludes critical evaluation of this claim. Objective This study aims to determine whether Latinxs exhibit more sexist attitudes, compared to other racial/ethnic groups and whether sexism has a differential impact on Latinx electoral support for Trump, compared to non‐Latinx counterparts. Methods We use the correlational analysis of 2016 and 2020 American National Election Study (ANES). The Online Appendix replicates these analyses with the 2012 ANES and 2018, 2019, and 2020 CCES. Results While Latinxs do express higher levels of sexism than other Americans, Latinx sexists are no more likely to vote for Donald Trump, compared to sexists of other racial/ethnic backgrounds, after controlling for a host of relevant covariates. Conclusion The machismo media narrative is at best sloppy journalism and at worst a misleading reproduction of harmful stereotypes against Latinxs.