My coauthor Aleks & I have successfully submitted and had approved a working group on Implicit Attitudes in Political Science for the 2011 APSA Conference.  Pretty cool, huh?  It’s going to be a great experience and an opportunity to interact with some scholars doing some really great work on the application of psychological theories and methods to political science.  Can’t wait for Seattle, but AJPS won’t send me there unless I get my work done, so this is a short post while I catch up on my submissions.  Be sure to sign up if you’re interested!

Since my dissertation focuses on immigration (particularly subnational, pro-immigrant policies – p.s. I’m never making it onto the Today show), I thought this was an interesting, survey-based look at immigrant attitudes from 1928.  (http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bogardus/1928/1928_toc.html). The more things change, the more they seem the same.  I haven’t made it through the entire book yet (thanks for Aleks for the heads-up and the Mead Project for the material, how would I cite that, by the way?), but it seems to be an early identification of aversion to immigration by “native” residents.  More when I finish it.

On that point, how much is the (almost universal) hostile reaction to immigrants a reaction to industrialization, the modern state, etc. and how much is psychological and an outcome of emotional, negative reactions to the “other?”  I mean, the Stranger is a typical aspect of historic (and modern) literature.  Usually not as a villain, but more as an agent of change, which, I guess, could explain some of the policy and publicity reaction.

Anyway, thank god this is a blog, I’m not sure that rambling about the connection between immigration policy and the literary archetype of the “Stranger” is getting passed my dissertation committee. However, I am intrigued by immigration policy, and how it has fluxuated between pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant policies since the founding.  Unlike, say, race, gender, sexuality, etc., which, generally speaking, have generally produced a long-term expansion of rights (more open and free for the “other”) through public policy, immigration has displayed an almost opposite directory.

During most of the 1800’s, public policy toward immigrants was generally generous, especially with access to social services, voting, naturalization, actual immigration, etc.  In the early 1900’s, however, (with, I’m sorry to say, an assist from the burgeoning social science fields) restrictive policies were enacted, initially against the Chinese and later against all immigrants.  For a good overview, see Tichenor’s Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America for a good historical treatment of national immigration policy in the U.S.

Basically, I’m interested in why “immigration” has not become a civil rights movement (and a successful one) like the gay rights movement, the women’s movement, the racial movement.  Obviously, those are the three that come to mind immediately, I could name more (the mentally ill, the disabled, etc.) movements where the object was for a greater acknowledgement by the state that the rights and protections of law applied to them as well.

Obviously, as an aside, none of the movements were unqualified successes, there are significant differences between the acknowledgement of rights and actual equality (de jure vs. de facto), and in real terms each of these movements has experienced significant setbacks as well as victories.  For every Title IX, there’s a Lilly Ledbetter (it deserves mention that while she lost in Court, she got a law. It’s actual effectiveness notwithstanding).  Anyway, my point is that, in so many other domains, the general, long-term trajectory has been an expansion of rights from members of different groups.  For immigrants, the opposite seems to have occurred.  Or, at least, the backlash is stronger and more persistent, with the status quo seemingly harder to move.

Why, of course, is the question?  Is there something more psychologically difficult about acknowledging the rights (humanity) of immigrants over homosexuals, members of another race, the disabled, etc.?  Or, is immigration more of a “standard” economic issue (that’s what Tichenor seems to think), and that labor needs drive pro-immigrant policy (or is it a feedback loop…)?

There are obviously immigrants-rights groups, powerful ones.  The Catholic Church, La Raza (pretty much any Latino group of any political clout), a number of agri-business groups, hi-tech firms need H2B folks and others.  They’ve pushed through directed bills, like DREAM Acts, H2A reform/AgJOBS (almost, a couple of times), etc.  But these groups don’t seem to have the clout (or the coherence) to push through a comprehensive, wide-ranging bill like the Civil Rights Act, or Title IX, or the ADA, something that provides a platform and a weapon for immigrants (legal and illegal) to fight the coercive power of the state and economic actors?

It should be obvious by now that I’m using this blog to do a little free-writing on my dissertation topic.  I’ll be working on my prospectus all summer, so expect more of these as I dig deeper into the topic.  These are just some unformed ideas off the top of my head, but hopefully something will turn into a theory of subnational pro-immigrant policy.  Politics, economics, civil rights, expertise – all of these influences come into immigration policy and I find it a fascinating subject.

Finally, apparently this guy is an illegal immigrant and a winner of the Pulitzer. Nifty.

First post in about 5 weeks, and no actual content to speak of.  In my defense during that period I: passed comps, had orthopedic surgery, had my wisdom teeth removed, moved to CT, got my car fixed, found a summer home for my cat, finished an online survey project about the Canadian election, and tried to keep up with my work at AJPS (to pay for said operations).  Most of that while on Vicodin. Basically, it’s been a busy month for me.  So, I’ll get back to posting and publishing in the next 2-3 days when I get started on my dissertation prospectus.  Expect a lot of comments and posts about immigration policy, particularly subnational immigration policy. Until then, let us all mourn the resignation of Anthony Weiner, not for the loss of a future leader, but for the forthcoming absence of thinly-veiled dick jokes in the news.