USING the RACE CARD: CONSTRUCTING REVERSE-RACISM WITHIN the ANTI-IMMIGRATION DEBATE a Thesis Submitted to Kent State Universit

Home , Reverse racism

USING THE RACE CARD:

CONSTRUCTING REVERSE-RACISM WITHIN THE

ANTI-IMMIGRATION DEBATE

A thesis submitted

to Kent State University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Arts

Karen M. Martinez

May, 2017

Thesis written by

Karen M. Martinez

B.A., California State University Bakersfield, 2013

M.A., Kent State University, 2017

Approved by

Tiffany Taylor , Advisor, Department of Sociology

Richard Serpe , Chair, Department of Sociology

James Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4

III. METHODS ...... 9

Data Collection and Sample...... 9

Analysis...... 12

IV. FINDINGS ...... 13

Affirmative Action ...... 14

Reverse-Racism as a Defense Mechanism: They're the REAL Racists ...... 18

Politics, Reverse-Racism, and the "Race Card'...... 22

V. DISCUSSION ...... 25

VI. CONCLUSION ...... 28

VII. REFERENCES ...... 30

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to start off by individually thanking the members of my amazing thesis committee who made this learning experience as painless and smooth as possible. First, I would like to thank Dr. Katrina Bloch for sharing a similar research interest and for allowing me to use her data. Her knowledge of the topic and data facilitated the coding and analysis process which was greatly appreciated. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr. Nicole Rousseau for always showing me compassion and understanding throughout this stressful process but also for encouraging me to think about the policy and real-life implications of my research. Lastly, I would especially like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Tiffany Taylor, for her constant helpful feedback and guidance throughout the entire process, as well as her patience and motivation. She never gave up on me or this project which I am extremely grateful for. My success would not have been possible without them, which highly reflects what great mentors they are. I would also like to thank my friends and, more importantly, ‘mi familia, porque sin ellos y su apoyo esto nunca seria posible, los amo mucho.’

iv CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (Emma Lazaruz 1883)

Written upon the Statue of Liberty, these words have come to characterize the United

States as a diverse melting pot of cultures due to its long history of immigration. Yet, attitudes towards immigrants and immigration policy have been widely contested and debated, even in recent years. People’s concerns with immigration rise with each new major wave of immigration into the United States. These fluctuations in perceptions and attitudes towards immigrants in the

United States are often related to labor and resources.

Historically, immigrants have been a source of cheap labor. Economic growth and expansion in the United Stated necessitated labor, creating the perfect opportunity for the government to entice immigrants with promises of employment and opportunities (Massey

1995). Yet, when resources and work ran out, immigration into the United States was restricted and limited. Patterns such as these have occurred throughout history like during the expansion out west with Irish immigrants, or the Gold Rush with Chinese immigrants. The Irish, although hated and discriminated against because of their catholic faith, over time were able to more easily assimilate because of their physical whiteness unlike many other racial and ethnic immigrant groups who experienced much harsher xenophobia and persecution (Bonilla-Silva and

1 Glover 2004; Papsun and Bangura 2016). Becoming “American” is harder for darker-skinned immigrants in general because of the racial hierarchy. The racial hierarch has helped create a spectrum of acceptance where white-passing individuals are able to enjoy the benefits of white privilege, because they themselves have light-skin privilege. White-passing immigrants, such as the Irish and Italians, were granted “honorary white” status, thus, making it easier for them to assimilate (Bonilla-Silva et al. 2004).

This further enforces the white racial frame that makes ‘American’ synonymous with white (Feagin 2013). In comparison, after the Gold Rush and the expansion of the railway out

West, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusionary Act to bar further Chinese immigrants from entering the country. Clearly not all immigrant groups in America are treated the same. Most acts that put restrictions and limits to the amount of immigrants allowed entry into the country were typically aimed at racial and ethnic immigrants from Latin America, the Middle-East, and Africa.

This is because immigrants of color pose a demographic threat when it comes to the dominance of whiteness in America (Papsun et al. 2016).

Today, concerns about immigration tend to focus more broadly on immigrants, specifically undocumented immigrants, coming from Mexico because of the perceived ‘Latino

Threat’ (Chavez 2013). This threat stems from the conspiracy theory of Reconquista that states that Mexicans are trying to invade and reconquer lands such as California, Arizona, Texas, and

Nevada that were taken by the US as part of Mexico’s terms of defeat at the end of the Mexican-

American War of 1848 (Chavez 2013). Anti-immigration rhetoric, therefore, tends to largely target Mexican immigrants due to this fear of threat that is heighted by the close geographic proximity of Mexico to the United States. Another main reason why Latinos are the target for a

lot of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the US is due to perceptions of their unwillingness or inability to assimilate and fully integrate within US society.

One of the biggest and most compelling arguments made by anti-illegal immigration proponents is that undocumented workers are diverting resources out of the United States back to their home countries. While anti-immigrant groups see this as an issue, the main basis for their anger is rooted in their belief that undocumented immigrants are stealing jobs that should be going to US citizens. These sentiments are further exasperated during times of economic recession and high unemployment. Yet, immigrants—both documented and undocumented—are working low-paying jobs without benefits and still manage to contribute both as consumers and taxpayers into the US economy (Knoll 2013; Ward 2016). In this thesis, I argue that relying on this argument to support anti-immigration rhetoric is just a smokescreen cloaked in colorblind ideology to de-racialize the issue of immigration. In the following section, I will outline some of the prominent literature on colorblindness and the de-racialization of immigration.

3 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on immigrants and immigration typically focuses on three things: (1) the processes of assimilation and acculturation, (2) perceptions and attitudes towards immigrants and

(3) their economic impact. Yet, very little of the literature focuses on the role of racism in explaining strict immigration policies, nativists’ attitudes and xenophobia, and how this applies mostly to non-white, non-European immigrants. The reason for this is that current immigration policy in the United States operates within a white racial frame (Feagin 2013).

The concept of ‘race’ in the United States is not a transfixed concept. According to Omi and Winant (2014) race is a socially constructed identity where racial categories are determined by social, economic, and political forces. The historical development of race is something that is fluid and dynamic (Doane and Bonilla-Silva 2003; Omi et al. 2014; Winant 2014). This is important in relation to how most Americans have come to understand and view race in the

United States. It is no secret that the US has had a long and sordid history when it comes to race relations. Nearly 300 years of slavery and over half a century of government sanctioned segregation during the Jim Crow era established that overt forms of racism existed. This type of racist ideology made it so that segregation was legal and that Black Americans were treated worse than second class citizens. In the 1960s many believed that the Civil Rights Movement would mark an end to racism and discrimination. However, race relations in the US arguably have improved little. Blacks and other minorities still experience racism and discrimination in their everyday lives. Yet, many white Americans believe racism is a thing of the past and that we are now living in a post-racial society. The new racism in the United States is colorblind racism

(Bonilla-Silva 2001).

Within this new frame of race relations in the United States, race has become unseen.

This is not to say that race no longer exists in our society, but rather that people believe that they have moved beyond it. This type of post-racial thinking relies more on minimizing the importance of race when explaining inequality (Bonilla-Silva 2001; Bonilla-Silva 2015; Bloch

2014) but this is done mostly because whites fear the stigma of being labeled racists (Apfelbaum,

Sommers, and Norton 2008; Berbrier 1999; Bloch 2016). Therefore, colorblind ideology forms the basis for post-racial discourse because it serves as a ‘saving face’ technique for whites to avoid being called racists. Blatant forms of racism are not seen or spoken out loud, but rather have become covert.

Regardless, race has always played an important signifier when looking at inequality in the United States and this ‘colorblindness’ belittles this notion. This is really a new form of racism that creates the illusion that race “doesn’t matter anymore,” when it comes to explaining a group’s low status or position within society. For example, by buying into this frame of colorblindness, instead of blaming high unemployment rates within the Black community on structural discrimination, people blame it on Blacks themselves, saying that because of their cultural deficiency that they are “inherently” lazy. This biologization of culture blames the victim for being in the position they are in instead of the structural discrimination built into our institutions (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Race still clearly plays an important role when it comes to determining the life chances of marginalized groups, as well as their educational, employment, and housing opportunities. Yet, in this post-racial society ‘anything but race’ becomes the narrative. While research shows that prescribing to either post-racial or colorblind ideology is a tactic used by white people to appear non-racist, this technique normally backfires (Apfelbaum et al. 2008) and proves that a lack of racial stamina is what is keeping us from moving forward

when it comes to race talk. Therefore, whether post-racial and colorblind attitudes are byproducts of either malicious intent or done unconsciously by whites, they contribute to further subjugate marginalized groups into racial caste systems.

Bonilla-Silva (2006) highlights the four basic principles of colorblind racism: (1) abstract liberalism, (2) naturalization, (3) cultural racism and, lastly, (4) minimization of racism. All four of these help explain how the issue of immigration can be presented as if there is no longer a racial component to policy-makers and anti-immigrant groups, such as the group highlighted in this study. The first frame, abstract liberalism focuses on this idea of “equal opportunity.” This is a symptom of individualistic societies that are structured around this concept of meritocracy and political liberalism which enforces the belief that everyone has the equal opportunity to be successful if they just work hard enough (Bonilla-Silva 2001). This is inherently problematic because it ignores the realities people of color and marginalized communities experience given their cumulative disadvantage. Colorblind ideology reinforces equality as a valued component of the American Dream where everyone is treated the same. However, equality is not the same as valuing equity, where policies and programs are specifically designed to level the playing field for historically marginalized groups instead of being rigged to benefit white, middle-class, cis- men. Under abstract liberalism, racial inequality is dismissed as a fault in the individual or culture versus blaming the actual culprit, which is structural and systematic discrimination.

The second frame of colorblind racism is naturalization (Bonilla-Silva 2006). This frame makes it possible for white people to explain away any issue that is a racial issue, such as immigration, and instead make it about something else that is nonracial. For instance, Berg

(2015) finds that positive and negative opinions towards immigrants and immigration policy tend to focus on some of the following main concepts, namely, personal and social identity, self and

group interest, cultural values and beliefs, and, lastly, social interactions. This is important because it helps explain how the argument of naturalization within the colorblind frame is created through the process of de facto self-selection biases and self-segregation. People tend to want to be around others who look and think the same way as they do and this process reinforces the non-racialism of certain issues. However, relying on this type of social psychological explanation for xenophobic tendencies ignores the more structural forces at play.

The third frame Bonilla-Silva (2006) identifies is cultural racism. This stigmatizes a marginalized group’s culture as problematic. Instead of acknowledging the cumulative disadvantage many marginalized people face such as living in communities where there are limited resources, jobs, and transportation due to structural discrimination, unemployment within these communities is not seen as part of an unfair and biased system, but rather as the fault of the values and norms of these individuals. This results in value statements demoralizing these communities and reinforcing the ‘defunct culture’ explanation that leads to the culture of poverty that many in these communities find themselves trapped in. This is the reality of many minorities, particularly Black citizens who suffer discrimination because of the legacy of slavery.

The last frame of colorblindness that Bonilla-Silva (2006) identifies is the minimization of racism. This frame suggests that life chances are not caused by racial discrimination because racial discrimination is no longer a central aspect affecting the lives of minorities. While things now, in terms of racial discrimination, are better than they were during slavery and Jim Crow, this should not be used as an argument to say instances of racial discrimination do not exist today. This minimizes the effect of race when looking at inequality. It is easy to think that the progress garnered by the Civil Right Era has alleviated racial tension, but these tensions have not been completely erased. Because of this minimization, anytime marginalized people point out the

injustice of the continued effects of racism, they are accused of being “hypersensitive” and of using race as an excuse or of playing the “race card”, which refers to the act of using one’s race as a tactic to gain either sympathy or an advantage over others (Bonilla-Silva 2006).

When it comes to the issue of immigration, colorblindness is very detrimental because it allows those who are anti-immigration to minimize the role of race. This allows anti-immigrant proponents to shift the focus and make the issue about economics and resources, or about fighting external global threats, which target and marginalize certain groups. This shift in focus works to maintain white dominance within the racial hierarchy in the US. I argue that it is through this tainted white lens that ALIPAC members are able to feel victimized and claim their anti-immigrant stance is about immigrants stealing their jobs. Through colorblindness they are able to de-racialize immigration, when in fact; they are the ones using the so-called ‘race card’

(Elise 2004).

8 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection and Sample

The data for this project was collected from the online discussion forum of an anti- immigrant or “nativist extremist” group’s website called Americans for Legal Immigration

Political Action Committee (ALIPAC). ALIPAC self-identified as a pro-legal immigration group with a clear four goal platform which is to: (1) secure US boarders, (2) stop employers who hire undocumented workers, (3) cut social services to undocumented immigrants, such as welfare, and other taxpayer benefits, and, lastly, (4) enforce existing laws to deport undocumented immigrants, especially if they have a criminal history. The data was collected using theoretical sampling in order to facilitate the development of theoretical insight (Singleton and Straits 2010) using the broad analytical category of “race card’ as the search keyword. This keyword was typed into the general discussion post on the website to collect relevant data

(http://www.alipac.us/). Theoretical sampling is also important for the development of theory.

This research seeks to build off of theories such as colorblind racism and how white privilege, or white skin privilege, and the use of the race card operate within the US. The process resulted in a sample consisting of 116 threads from 2010-2011. The threads were collected from October to

December of 2011.

This time period is significant, because of the events that preceded it. In the fall of 2008, the US market crashed because of the housing bubble and credit crisis resulting in high

9 unemployment rates and people losing their homes and the first bi-racial president was elected.

A prevalent argument against undocumented immigration is that jobs and resources should be given to Americans and not foreigners (Berg 2015). Given the desperate situation and the lack of jobs during this time, it is important to examine anti-immigrant attitudes in the following years.

Further, the current anti-immigrant political climate, and the framing of immigration in the US, highlights the importance of research on anti-immigrant sentiment.

Online data is a significant and nearly limitless source of unfiltered thought and opinions that is easily available to millions. Meaning, this data can be a rich and comprehensive dataset on a variety of topics, such is the case with the ALIPAC discussion group threads in this study.

Online discussion group forums, such as ALIPAC, are particularly fitting for this study focusing on (i.e. race, social inequality, racial hierarchy, social control). Additionally, these are sensitive topics that most individuals in everyday interactions tend to avoid discussing for two specific reasons. First, social etiquette teaches us to avoid talking about subjects that might cause unpleasantness or awkward feelings. Race is always a topic that causes certain people (i.e. white people) a lot of anxiety given the United States racial history. This leads to the second reason people tend to avoid talking about race in-person which is because they fear saying something that can be construed as racists which can lead to labeling and stigma. Therefore, online discussion group research is great for the purposes of this study because they act as safe space for free speech. The anonymity that the internet affords individuals enabled them to act without fear of judgment or persecution. This allows individuals to say what they really feel and those feelings are validated by others in the group who share similar opinions even though they are geographically spaced out.

Table 1 provides descriptive frequencies of the sample. In the 116 threads, there were

2,040 individual posts by 258 unique user names or aliases. The size of threads ranged from 1 post to 135 posts and the median number of posts per thread was 22. Although ALIPAC headquarters is located in North Carolina, the organization is a national organization with members all over the United States. Of the 116 thread sample, only half of the discussion participants listed their location. Individuals in the discussion forum were from 32 different states, specifically Southern and border states, while some individuals listed their location as

“Mexifornia,” “somewhere near the border,” “InvadedAreabyIllegals,” and “Mexico’s maternity ward.” Texas was the most frequent location (N=49), while North Carolina was the 4th most frequent state.

Table 1. Descriptive Frequencies for ALIPAC Discussion Forum

Total threads analyzed 116

Total posts analyzed 2,040

Mean posts per thread 18

Minimum posts per thread 1

Maximum posts per thread 135

Number of unique aliases 258

Average posts per user 7

Median posts per user 22

*Sample of threads collected from October thru December, 2011.

Analysis

The threads were copied from the main ALIPAC website and transferred into Word documents. I then uploaded them into ATLAS.ti qualitative software for analysis. An inductive approach was used to analyze the data, beginning with open or initial coding where I assigned a code to each line of data (Charmaz 2006; Lofland and Lofland 1995; Lofland, Snow, Anderson, and Lofland 2006). I open coded all 116 threads before beginning a more focused coding schema directed at line-by-line coding to develop conceptual codes that emerged in the open coding of the data (Charmaz 2001). I wrote theoretical memos after each round of coding that helped me connect themes in the data to theory. This also allowed me to develop a better focused-coding schema (Charmaz 2006; Lofland et al. 2006). All of the quotes used are presented exactly as they were written in the forum; errors in grammar are those of the original author of the forum post.

12 CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Theoretical sampling using the concept of ‘race card’ was used to collect the sample for this study. Therefore, the results focus on how members of a self-proclaimed nativist extremist online group use the infamous ‘race card’ in their anti-immigration rhetoric. The analysis yielded interesting results on how members of this online forum construct the issue of ‘illegal’ immigration around the use of the ‘race card’ as a form of reverse racism. Colorblind ideology is expressed by members throughout all discussion threads. Forum members rely on assumptions of a post-racial colorblind world view to form the basis of their argument. Specifically, they claim that the issue of immigration is not about race, or has moved beyond race, and that those who continue to say it is are racializing the issue for their own benefit while victimizing whites.

The findings suggest ALIPAC members use and construct the term ‘race card’ within their anti-illegal immigration rhetoric as persecution through reverse racism. They perceive the

‘race card’ as reverse racism in three unique ways. The first way in which ALIPAC members view the use of the ‘race card’ as reverse racism involves the way in which schools and employers use the ‘race card’ as a token of affirmative action to steal jobs and resources from whites, specifically white men The second theme focuses on how ALIPAC members transform the label and manage the stigma associated with the label ‘racists’ by focusing instead on how

Latinx immigrants are the true racists. Lastly, the third theme focuses on how politicians coddle immigrants and use the ‘race card’ to promote a liberal agenda. All three themes create a sense of

13 persecution for forum members, who feel their interests are not being considered or receiving enough support. The following sections will outline these three findings.As a Token of

Affirmative Action

The first theme in the data focuses on how ALIPAC members use and construct the term

‘race card’ in their anti-“illegal” immigration rhetoric as a token of affirmative action from employers and education institutions. In their view, the ‘race card’ is used as a mechanism for stealing jobs and other entitlements from “Americans.” For example, Daveghourds59 states:

My co-workers experience reminded of how illegals that work in many of the hotels here

take positions that many US citizens should have because many are unemployed and

suffering in this economy.

Daveghourds59 argument is echoed throughout the discussion forum but it is also part of a much larger narrative that focuses on the economic impacts of immigration and the socio- historical aspects of immigration in the US. Historically, the US has experienced higher immigration rates whenever the economy is good. More jobs and resources means there is a need for cheap laborers (Massey 1995). However, during times of economic hardship (i.e. The Great

Depression), restrictions on immigration have been placed; creating a rise in nativist attitudes and this sense of entitlement that is the basis for ALIPAC members’ negative attitudes towards immigration.

This sense of entitlement that ALIPAC members feel about jobs and other resources is validated by their belief in this “Americans first” logic but also in their belief that they are more qualified than undocumented immigrants. It is for this reason that the ‘race card’ is negatively perceived by members of ALIPAC because it is contradictory to the “bootstraps” narrative that is so prevalent in the United States that places great value on promoting a meritocracy. As Bonilla-

Silva (2001) argues, this narrative is highly prevalent in individualistic societies that focus on the individual in terms of their ability to acquire skills and merit to promote greater life chances.

However, this type of abstract liberalism ignores the larger structural processes that systematically oppress certain individuals, such as racial and ethnic minority groups, barring them access from acquiring the same skills. This has further marginalized certain groups who now experience cumulative disadvantage.

While ALIPAC members’ base their argument against the ‘race card’ being used to benefit immigrants, they exhibit colorblindness in the way they talk about the ‘race card’ as a token of affirmative action because they ignore that the system is specifically set up to benefit whites, particularly white men. The following quote by ALIPAC member Browneyes106 is an example of this. In this quote, Browneyes106 is replying to another member’s post about a lawsuit being filed by a white student who claimed the University’s admissions office had unfairly rejected her and had instead chosen to admit what she considered was a much less qualified immigrant student of color. Browneyes106 states:

[…] I have seen many Hispanics play the race card way too much and it is sickening. One

of the biggest problems in our societies has the awarding of money, careers and

educations towards people based on their race and not their actual merits

As Browneyes106 argues, “money, careers and educations” should be awarded to people who have better qualifications and should not be based on race. Therefore, the issue of immigration for ALIPAC members is not about race but rather it is about immigrants using race to undermine meritocracy. They argue immigrants are using the ‘race card’ in order to gain unfair advantages over Americans. One forum member specifically notes that it is white men in

particular who are most affected by this, in terms of being unfairly denied jobs and resources.

This member, Millere, states:

This type of thing goes on all over academia. In 1992 I was once denied a job at a

university research lab because in the words of one employee working there "they will

never hire white males". Another department at the same university got caught asking

potential students a short quiz on whether they were "mulit-racial" or not. The quiz was

part of the admissions form to the university department. American white people can

rarely do anything about this since getting a lawyer costs way too money. This is how we

have given up our national sovereignty, with "white people not allowed" academic

admissions policies.

In this quote, Millere uses a personal experience to explain how the ‘race card’ is being used specifically against white men because of what he considers to be the structural disadvantages of affirmative action type programs that require diversity hiring. His argument is that whites have a harder time getting jobs because of their race and expresses frustration at the fact that white people seem to be powerless to do anything about what he considers to be an unjust situation. This sense of powerlessness and persecution is tied to an aversion ALIPAC members seem to have with being called out or labeled a racist. ALIPAC members argue that immigrants have been able to get away with using the ‘race card’ because no one is willing to call them out on it. They argue this has given immigrants an unchecked power because no one, especially not whites who are the most affected by this, are willing to say anything because of the stigma that is associated with being labeled as a racist. Again, Millere’s quote shows how notions of abstract liberalism (Bonilla-Silva 2001) are present within the overall argument

ALIPAC members make against immigration because although they show an aversion to being

labeled racist, they do not support policies that promote treating marginalized groups of people equally. In the following quote, Ghostbear talks about being tired of the ‘race card’ being thrown out, especially when it comes to gaining employment. Ghostbear states:

I'm sure I'm not the only one that is tired of hearing the race card thrown into this yet

again. I notice that when it comes to getting special scholarships, social services,

language services, etc., they don't mind being racially labelled at all. But when the same

criteria come into play for enforcing our laws, they scream 'profiling'. I'm fed up, and

Gov Brewer can't sign it fast enough as far as I'm concerned. And, no, I am NOT 'racist'. I

have many friends of hispanic/latino heritage, and they are as vehemently opposed to this

invasion as I am.

Again, the main issue being brought up by ALIPAC members is that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are using the ‘race card’ against whites to steal their jobs and services. Thus, validating ALIPAC members’ argument that the ‘race card’ functions as a mechanism to promote anti-whiteness or reverse racism which undermines our meritocracy. If their argument against the race card really was about promoting equity they would not spend so much time trying to de-racialize the issue through claims of non-racism. In this quote, Ghostbear argues that immigrants only like being racially labeled when it benefits them but when it comes to calling them out on it, they find that this results in accusation of profiling. Ghostbear, therefore, has to validate their argument by prefacing that they are not a racist. This is something commonly done by members throughout the forum which ties into how members use the ‘race card’ to de-racialize the issue of immigration to argue that they themselves are victims of reverse-racism. This leads to the second theme which focuses on how ALIPAC members reconstruct racism in order to argue that the real racists are actually Latinx immigrants.

Reverse-Racism as a Defense Mechanism: They’re the REAL Racists

The second finding shows how ALIPAC members de-racialize the issue of immigration as a defense mechanism, in order to avoid being labeled racist. This talk highlights a contradiction in ALIPAC members’ argument about the use of the ‘race card.’ In many instances throughout the threads, ALIPAC members express this deep aversion to racializing the issue.

Yet, they do not realize the arguments they are making are inherently about race since they perceive this issue to be strictly about Latinx immigrants.

For example, in the following quote, Justthefacts demonstrates this focus on Latinx immigrants. However, Justthefacts acknowledges that there are racial and ethnic struggles in the

US but expresses a fear of further escalation given immigration. Justthefacts statement reiterates most ALIPAC members’ firm belief that these struggles are caused by the increasing number of undocumented immigrants. Justthefacts argues that if nothing is done to stop the influx of immigrants entering the US they will take over and “win.” What winning means in this context is not clear but the following line “I have no problem sharing this country with Americans, no matter their race or ethnic origins” brings up the question of who ALIPAC members consider to be American. This line of reasoning is deeply rooted in colorblindness. Their arguments are what allows them to ignore the real racism imbued in our social fabric, while feeling victimized themselves. Justthefacts states:

When this country finally wakes up that hispanics (NOT ALL OF THEM) are the

problem , then we will be able to fix it

This is a culture and ethnic struggle that can't end good if it stays on its present course.

All other cultures in America will be butting heads with them , they win , or we win

I have no problem sharing this country with Americans , no matter their race or ethnic

origins

I have a problem with a bunch of racists of one ethnicity that feels they can come here

and mooch off tax paying citizens and play the victim card

If that makes me a racist , So be it

In this quote, we start to see hints of how members of ALIPAC construct the term ‘race card’ within their reverse-racism logic regarding the meanings they assign to the label of racist.

Because most members’ arguments are cloaked within this colorblind rhetoric, they express this aversion to the label of racist and try to validate their arguments against immigration as non- racialized. This argument, though, is contradictory. In Justthefacts opinion, the real racists are

Mexican or Latinx immigrants who they argue use the ‘race card’ to get ahead and take advantage of our social welfare and government benefits.

Similarly, Daveghourds59 claims the true racists are the immigrants who use the ‘race card’ and who continue to openly maintain and display their racial or ethnic culture versus assimilating to

“American” culture. In the following quote, Daveghourds59 states:

I agree it seems like ethnocentrism, La Raza means the race, its like they are saying they

are a superior group or something!

I just laugh now when they claim whites are being racist to latinos!

I 've seen the attitudes they have towards blacks and whites

and I've been referred to as a "gringo" myself!

What Daveghourds59 is arguing is that special interest groups such as La Raza, which is a civil rights advocacy group for Latinos, are inherently racists because they are self-segregating.

He states that the name of the organization itself hints that Latinos think of themselves as

superior, making them the true racists. He then goes on to state that Latinos hold negative attitudes not only towards whites but towards Black people as well and then talks about his own personal experience of having been called “gringo” to validate his sentiments. To him, the term

“gringo” is derogatory. However, the term simply refers to a white person from the US. Yet, the way he has internalized this is as an insult that validates his feelings of victimization and feelings of reverse-racism.

Throughout the threads, there is this constant focus by ALIPAC members to de-racialize the issue of immigration. Yet, the history of immigration in the US is so entrenched within issues of race. This is due to the racialization of immigration laws and policies that have legally imposed racists Origins quotas on immigrants of racial and ethnic minority (Lopez 2006; Massey

1995). However, ALIPAC members view the continued use of the ‘race card’ by pro-immigrant proponents as excessive. For instance, the following forum member argues “the color aspect” no longer carries much traction in our post-racial society. Bowman shows how embedded colorblind ideology is rooted within ALIPAC members’ claims of reverse-racism. Bowman states:

These racists cannot get past the "color" aspect (hmm, isn't beige a color?) because that's

all racists think about, they totally ignore that the majority of the "immigrants of color"

(actually non-European illegal aliens) hate Americans, our freedoms, steal from and kill

current Americans OF ALL COLORS!! They conviently ignore that in 1920 when the

flood of immigrants was European, Americans still shut it down for the same reasons we

want it shut off today!!!

Again, this veers into reverse-racism logic because it switches the script of who the real racists are. Again, to many members of ALIPAC the issue is not about race but rather about protecting and maintaining privileges for Americans against the real racists which to them are

immigrants and pro-immigrant sympathizers. Bowman points out that anti-immigration opposition in the US has remained the same throughout history regardless of a groups’ racial and ethnic origin. However, Bowman argument fails to acknowledge this and that historically harsher immigration policies in the US have specifically targeted and dehumanized groups of racial and ethnic minorities. This is done by criminalizing them, as Bowman does above. ALIPAC members consistently label undocumented immigrants as “illegal” or “aliens” to justify the mistreatment of immigrants.

ALIPAC members view the continued use of race in the immigration debate as a way to paint white Americans as the bad guys. They argue, in reality, the opposite is true. The de- racializing of the issue is done in an effort to help promote this narrative of reverse-racism while minimizing the stigma ALIPAC members feel about being labeled as racist. This de-racialization is also very much a product of colorblind ideology which promotes the US as a post-racial landscape, regardless of the clear evidence of the continued structural racial inequality.

Manlyva153, however, argues we are no longer in a colorblind era stating:

Just my opnion: I have read many accounts as to why the race card is being played more

and more in recent history. No, electing a half while, half black man will never end the

racial overtones, but the elected one had (read: Had) the chance to make inroads.

Unfortunately, (in my opinion) he has been the single most polarizing person in the

elected government. I believe he has made the race issue worse by some of the stunts he

has pulled. I also believe that he had always intented to make the race issue this way

because of his dislike for American's.

In a time not long ago, I never used to look or acknowledge a persons color, upbringing,

or education. In recent times, because of what I consider reverse racism, I am start to

notice and it bothers me a great deal. If someone isn't politically correct and says the

wrong thing, you could be sued, hounded by the ACLU, or worse, branded for saying

something that might have sounded innocent in times past. I'll tell you, this country at

times, feels like it is being turned upside-down.

Manlyval53 blames Obama for making people notice and talk about race, taking people out of their comfortable colorblind worlds. This has resulted in “the racial issue” being perceived as much worse in the US which has had a polarizing effect. Overall, Manlyva153 argues that the

‘race card’ is about the political correctness and longs for the days when things were de- racialized.

Politics, Reverse-Racism, and the ‘Race Card’

The last theme focuses on how ALIPAC members feel victimized not only by employers, immigrants, and racial ethnic minorities but also by our government. To them being anti- immigration is not about being racists but rather it is about being patriotic and upholding the law.

They blame our government and politicians for not enforcing immigration laws and for allowing immigrants to continue entering our country in order to promote a liberal agenda. The following quote by NoBueno demonstrates this aspect of their ‘race card’ as reverse racism logic because they feel left out of the political discourse. NoBueno states:

Do you think it would be racist (of course it would) to suggest we might need a National

White Caucus of State Legislators? I mean, every other group has representation based

upon race or ethnicity, pursuing legislation which benefits their specific group.

Who's looking out for our interests, in this day of representation based upon race?

In this quote, NoBueno argues that special interest groups for racial and ethnic minorities are exclusionary and denigrate whiteness in an effort to promote multiculturalism. Yet, in this

quote it seems NoBueno is suggesting that ignoring the interests of white people is actually going against this multicultural ideal that our government is trying to promote. Interestingly,

NoBueno acknowledges that it would be racist to suggest that whites might need a white caucus of state legislators. However, the tone suggests NoBueno is being sarcastic given that most members in ALIPAC view this type of special interests based solely on race as a form of reverse- racism. In one extreme case, ALIPAC member Tbow009 goes as far as to say that

“Progressives” in our government and the media are waging a “WAR” against white men.

Tbow009 states:

the WAR Againt white males is in full force, and the "Progressives" are attacking

relentlessly through the media...

Nearly every ad you see with a bad or stupid guy, the bad/stupid guy is a white guy. No

wonder advertising, and television in general, are in horrible shape. No wonder white

people are fed up. People easily see through their propaganda and progressive agenda of

destroying the white males reputation and honor in this once-great nation...

In this quote, Tbow009 talks about the “progressive agenda” and how whites are fed up with the propaganda that is trying to ruin the “reputation and honor” of white men. He is, of course, referring to this sense of persecution whites feel about being labeled as racist. They feel their interests are not being addressed while at the same time they also feel frustrated by their inability to speak out because they fear being labeled as racists. As the second theme suggests,

ALIPAC members truly believe that they are not racists. The true racists are immigrants and pro- immigrant sympathizers, especially elected officials who they feel ignore that immigrants who are undocumented are actively breaking our laws. This dissatisfaction with the current political

state of immigration coupled with increased fear of threat post-9/11 has led to heighted vigilante activity by nativist groups such as ALIPAC (Ward 2013; Ward 2014; Winders 2007).

24 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Immigration continues to be one of the most contested issues in our country’s political and social discourse, despite the fact that the US claims to be a nation of immigrants.

Historically, US immigration has been fraught with traces of racism. In the immigration policies that have been enacted over the last century, such as origin quotas, legal restrictions have barred certain types of immigrants from gaining legal entry (Lopez 2006; Massey 1995). As immigration patterns and trends have changed over the last century, so has the conversation surrounding it, especially given increases in undocumented immigration that began during the late 1970s. ALIPAC members claim to be pro-legal immigration and against undocumented immigration, arguing their focus is on the law. However, while they rely on these legal definitions to support their stance against immigration (Lippard 2015), ALIPAC members often blur the delineation between legal and “illegal”. All the while, they target immigrants from Latin

America, specifically those they perceive to be from Mexico.

Using colorblind rhetoric, ALIPAC members reinforce the dominant discourse surrounding the issue of immigration that de-racializes immigration. This broader discourse allows ALIPAC members to defend their negative attitudes towards immigration, especially undocumented immigration, by focusing on the legal, political, and social definitions (Lopez

2006). This allows ALIPAC members to make generalizations about certain types of immigrants, creating racialized identities that label them as criminals. This helps reinforce the need for the

25 emerging “Crimmigration system,” which further perpetuate the criminalization of immigrants by treating immigration enforcement as part of our criminal justice system (Armenta 2017).

Overall, I find that ALIPAC members’ arguments against the use of the ‘race card’ with immigration largely reflect their aversion to racializing the issue. This not only helps members avoid the stigma associated with being labeled a racist, it also is a way of protecting white privilege (Apfelbaum 2008; Berbrier 1999). Racializing the issue of immigration is contradictory to their ideological beliefs, or at least their arguments, that rely on assumptions of abstract liberalism (Bonilla-Silva 2006). Abstract liberalism focuses on an individual’s merits while ignoring the structural inequality that exists because of racial discrimination. ALIPAC members use abstract liberalism to discuss immigration in order to be able to claim that the use of the race card is actually a form of reverse racism.

My research adds to prior research focusing on the racialization of immigration and how colorblind ideology has transformed the rhetoric surrounding immigration (Bloch 2014; Lippard

2015). As mentioned before, colorblind ideology is employed throughout ALIPAC members’ arguments as a smokescreen to try to deracialize the issue of immigration by relying on abstract liberalism ideals such as the meritocracy. For ALIPAC members’ who firmly adhere to the idea of meritocracy, this is the main concern they express when defending their anti-immigration stance. As Jefferies (2008) research suggests relying on meritocratic ideologies helps anti- immigrant proponents vilify immigrants, thus justifying any group disparity or inequality by blaming it on their lack of “moral character.” As such, ALIPAC members’ believe that when immigrants and pro-immigrant sympathizers, especially politicians, use the ‘race card’ to appeal to the public they are undermining the meritocracy by making the issue about race. They argue using race, ethnicity, or legal status as a determinant or prerequisite for affirmative action

programs, scholarships, or other benefits is automatically discriminating against white people who are victims of an un-meritocratic, and unfair, system. Again, ALIPAC members believe this undercuts core American values, arguing that there are more qualified individuals who should be able to get the same benefits. They believe, and argue, that race should no longer matter because we live in a post-racial world.

However, this sends a contradictory message about ALIPAC members’ main argument about the use of the ‘race card.’ As mentioned previously, their argument about the use of the race card as a form of reverse-racism comes from their internalization of colorblind ideology.

Yet, by claiming that immigration should be de-racialized while simultaneously arguing the

“race card” is a form of reverse racism towards whites is contradictory. ALIPAC members racialize immigration by focusing on how they are the victims of a system that no longer takes their (seemingly white man) interests into account. Building on Elise’s (2004) research, my findings show how ALIPAC members’ internalization of the meritocracy myth, which operates within this concept of abstract liberalism, shows how the invisibility of whiteness allows white people to use their own race card and still feel victimized when others do because they belief they have earned it.

27 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ALIPAC members view the ‘race card’ as a form of reverse-racism and, while blatant traces of racism exist within forum members’ arguments, a vast majority of them have cloaked their argument against immigration in colorblindness. In this way, they are able to make claims that race-based politics such as immigration are nonracial, while at the same time express feelings of victimization based on their own whiteness (Elise 2004). They argue that employers, immigrants and immigrant sympathizers, as well as government officials are pushing a liberal agenda. This liberal agenda uses the divisive issue of race in efforts to specifically target and quell white people from expressing their opposition without appearing racist. However,

ALIPAC members’ claim of reverse-racism shows that they have a flawed understanding of the fundamental concept of racism. Racism, as some scholars have noted (e.g. Miles and Brown

2003) is not an easily definable term. While at its most fundamental form racism refers to one race feeling superior to another race, racism has become such a politicized issue because of the structural power and privilege that characterize it in the United States. It is through this understanding of racism that one can see that ALIPAC members’ argument about reverse-racism is misguided because reverse-racism can only occur when those in the minority status obtain political, social, and institutional power over those in the majority.

Overall, although this analysis provides insight into how forum members draw on colorblind racism in their anti-immigration arguments and about the use of the race card being a

28 form of reverse racism, this project does have a few limitations. While online information, such as forum comments, can be a source of rich data there are some limitations to their use. First, it is impossible to make overarching generalizations. Because this data comes from a specific organization, it caters to particular people who already have opinions that align with the organization’s beliefs and mission. In this case, the organization is ALIPAC which is an anti- undocumented, pro-legal immigration website. It is possible the findings here would be supported in studies of other anti-immigrant groups, but comparisons were beyond the scope of this research. Second, members in the forum use unidentifiable aliases to make comments.

Therefore, little is known about their demographics. While some members clearly discuss how the race card is discriminatory towards white men, it is difficult to know how their gender, race, or socioeconomic status affects their opinions toward immigration.

Future research could potentially involve posting on the forum to recruit further information such as members’ gender, race, and socioeconomic status to see if these factors affects or puts their comments more into context. For instance, there were many instances within the data where gender and race were both mentioned, specifically when alluding to meritocracy and ALIPAC members’ feelings that white men are the ones with more at stake of losing jobs and other entitlements to immigrants. Therefore, future work could further explore how much of their anti-immigrant stance is motivated by a desire to maintain the gender and racial hierarchy.

29 REFERENCES

Apfelbaum, Evan P., Samuel R. Sommers, and Michael I. Norton. 2008. “Seeing Race and Seeming Racist? Evaluating Strategic Colorblindness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95(4): 918 –932.

Armenta, Amada. 2017. "Racializing Crimmigration." Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 3(1):82- 95.

Berbrier, Mitch. 1999. “Impression Management for the Thinking Racist: A Case Study of Intellectualization as Stigma Transformation in Contemporary White Supremacist Discourse.” The Sociological Quarterly 40(3): 411-433.

Berg, Justin Allen. 2015. “Explaining Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: A Review of the Theoretical Literature.” Sociological Compass 9(1): 23-34.

Bloch, Katrina Rebecca. 2014. ‘Anyone Can Be an Illegal’: Color-Blind Ideology and Maintaining Latino/Citizen Borders.” Critical Sociology 40(1): 47-65.

Bloch, Katrina Rebecca. 2016. “It is just SICKENING”: Emotions and discourse in an anti- immigrant discussion forum.” Sociological Focus 49(4): 1-14.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, and Karen S. Glover. 2004. “We are all Americans: The Latin Americanization of race relations in the USA.” Pp. 149-186 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan, and Amanda E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy & Racism in the Post Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2006. Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2012. “The invisible weight of whiteness: the racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(2): 173-194.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2015. “The Structure of Racism in Color-Blind, “Post-Racial” America.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(11): 1358-1376.

Chavez, Leo. 2013. The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

30 Doane, Ashley W., and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 2003. White out: The continuing significance of racism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Elise, Sharon. 2004. “How Whites Play Their Race Card: Drylongso Stories Reveal “The Game.” Sociological Perspectives 47(4): 409-438.

Feagin, J. R. 2013. The white racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-framing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Iyengar, Shanto, Simon Jackman, Solomon Messing, Nicholas Valentino, Toril Aalberg, Raymond Duch, Kyu S. Hahn, Stuart Soroka, Allison Harell, and tetsuro Kobayashi. 2013. “Do Attitudes about Immigration Predict Willingness to Admit Individual Immigrants? A Cross-National Test of the Person-Positivity Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77(3): 641-665.

Jefferies, Julian. 2008. “Do Undocumented Students Play by the Rules?: Meritocracy in the Media.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 6(1): 15-38.

Knoll, Benjamin R. 2013. “Implicit Nativist Attitudes, Social Desirability, and Immigration Policy Preferences.” IMR 47(1): 132–165.

Lippard, Cameron D. 2015. “Playing the Immigrant Card”: Reflections of Color-blind Rhetoric within Southern Attitudes on Immigration. Social Currents 3(1): 24-42.

Lopez, Ian Haney. 2006. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. NYU Press.

Massey, Douglas S. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States.” Population and Development Review 21(3): 631-652.

Miles, Robert and Malcolm Brown. 2003. Racism. Psychology Press.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 2014. Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.

Papsun, Amy, and Abdul Karim Bangura. 2016. "Changing Views Of The Irish In 19Th Century America: A Feat Of The Efficacy Of "Whiteness Theory." Journal Of International Diversity 2012(3): 73-82.

Ward, Matthew. 2013. “Mobilising ‘Minutemen’: Predicting Public Support for Anti- Immigration Activism in the United States.” Sociological Research Online 18(4): 1-18.

Ward, Matthew. 2014. “They Say Bad Things Come in Threes: How Economic, Political and Cultural Shifts Facilitated Contemporary Anti-Immigration Activism in the United States. Journal of Historical Sociology 27(2): 263-292.

Ward, Matthew. 2016. “Opportunity, Resources, and Threat: Explaining Local Nativist Organizing in the United States.” Sociological Perspectives: 1-20.

Winant, Howard. 2014. “The Dark Matter: Race and Racism in the 21st Century.” Critical Sociology 41(2): 313-324.

Winders, Jamie. 2007. “Bringing back the (B)order: Post-9/11 Politics of Immigration, Borders, and Belonging in the Contemporary US South.” Antipode 39(5): 920-942.