IMMIGRATION MYTHS: A SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE

Jeffrey R. Oliver, Ph.D., MBA
Michigan State University

Introduction

“To hundreds and thousands of ignorant foreigners that have come to our shores, liberty means liberty to commit crime, freedom means freedom to be beastly and degraded. They contaminate everything they touch” (Flores 2003, 368). This anti-immigrant rhetoric appeared in the American Standard (San Francisco) in 1888. Although it is 125 years old, this rhetoric is not so different from some appearing in the immigration reform debates of today.

For example, political consultant Frank Luntz encourages people to speak of immigration using the following rhetoric: “This is about overcrowding of YOUR schools, emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals, the increase in YOUR taxes, and the crime in YOUR communities” (Luntz 2007, 284-5; Garcia 2012; emphasis in original). He also encourages conversations about “border security” and September 11^thwhich potentially conjures up fears about terrorism (Luntz 2007, 284-5; Garcia 2012).

In this paper, I argue that this type of negative rhetoric toward immigrants is often the result of “unarticulated fears” (Massey 1995) rather than thorough study of immigration issues. The dissemination of this rhetoric can be termed “immigrant threat narrative” (Flores 2003; Chavez 2008). Immigrant threat narrative assigns a position of “otherness” (Blumer 1958) to immigrants and results in negative feelings toward them as well as the passage of immigrant-hostile legislation (Flores 2003). I will use the term “immigration myths” to refer to immigrant threat narratives that are the product of “unarticulated fears” rather than well-studied opinions. This negativity toward immigrants can be thought of as deeply embedded in social structures, and as pervasive at all levels of society (Feagin & Elias 2013).

Immigration myths also have real consequences (Flores 2003, Massey 2013). For example, there is a preponderance of literature on the net benefit of immigrants in the United States (Hainmueller & Hisox 2010; Kenny 2012; Koba 2012; Brooks 2013; Furrow 2013; Scott 2013). However, due to myths about immigration, the potential benefits of immigration may not be realized because of the passage of immigrant-hostile legislation (de jure) as well as interpersonal (de facto) discrimination. Current research suggests that if immigrants are given a path to legal status, they will add a net $25 billion to the economy each year (Brooks 2013; Salas 2013). Conversely, if deportation of all undocumented immigrants were to occur, the United States would lose “$551.6 billion in economic activity, $245 billion in gross domestic product and approximately 2.8 million jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time” (Salas 2013). Therefore, the potential impact of immigration myths could range from less productive immigrant workers due to defending threats against their identity (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 2009) to economic disaster (see Brooks 2013; Salas 2013).

I first present a discussion on the source of these “unarticulated fears” (Massey 1995) or myths, followed by a discussion of the inaccurate nature of the myths themselves. Through an extensive review of academic and journalistic literature, I find overwhelming support for increased encouragement (rather than increased sanctions) for undocumented immigration and informal business activities.

Foundations of Immigration Myths

As stated above, many people believe and perpetuate immigration myths instead of seeking the facts about immigration. Even Mead (1962 [1934]) noted that individuals often imagine how others will act in society and “take on” those imagined responses. Building on Mead, it may be that individuals cling to myths they hear in passing that seem to fit with the opinions that they think will fit with those in their social group. In other words, rather than studying the facts of immigration and drawing fact-based conclusions, individuals cling to information that seems to go along with the opinions of those they care about.

While this describes a micro-level process, the reader would do well to remember that discrimination can be seen as deeply embedded in social structures and pervasive throughout all levels of society (Feagin & Elias 2013). Therefore, these attitudes of hostility toward immigrants are not only found at the individual level. For example, these myths of immigration may ultimately impact official legislation (Flores 2013). To further complicate the matter, individual level acts and attitudes may impact and be impacted by legislation.

For example, immigration policies in the United States had been overtly racist prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960s, “openly (discriminating) against Asians, Africans and Southern/Eastern Europeans” (Massey 2013, 6). This practice was abolished in the 1960s with the rise of the civil rights movement (Massey 2013, 6). In this way, public attitudes encouraged a policy change. However, these same public attitudes encouraged the demise of another migration policy because it was viewed as exploitive. This was a temporary worker program for Mexican nationals known as the “bracero program” (Massey 2013, 6). Once again, public attitudes encouraged a change in policy; however, the policy also created an unanticipated shift in public attitudes. The termination of the bracero program and subsequent reduction in the number of visas for these Mexican nationals changed the “status” of these workers, and the same individuals that had been welcomed before were now officially “illegal” immigrants, “lawbreakers” and, thus “criminals” (Massey 2013, 7). Therefore, a policy which was intended to defend the rights of international workers unintentionally criminalized them. This, in turn impacted the way these immigrants came to be seen (Massey 2013) (in other words, policy impacted public opinion).

The impact of this policy change on public attitudes can still be seen today. For example, despite numerous recent articles on the positive impact of immigrants (documented and undocumented) (Hainmueller & Hisox 2010; Charles 2012; Kenny 2012; Koba 2012; Brooks 2013; Furrow 2013; Scott 2013), many still engage in rhetoric that claim that immigrants are the problem (Flores 2003; Chavez 2008; Garcia 2013) and that undocumented immigrants are law breakers and criminals (Skerry 2013). In short, one of the pervading themes of opponents of pro-immigration policy is that many immigrants are undocumented, and, consequently are “law-breakers” and undeserving of citizenship. Ironically, however, the trend of undocumented immigration was precipitated by official policies once encouraging certain types of migration (for example, through the bracero program), and then suddenly criminalizing the deeply engrained patterns they had set in motion through policy (Massey 2013). These are just a few examples of the way in which legislation can be impacted by public opinion and public opinion by policy.[1] However, understanding why negative attitudes and hostile legislation directed toward immigrants exist is quite complex.

Esses, Jackson & Armstrong (1998) reviewed the major types of theories of conflict with immigrants. They note that conflict with immigrants has been explained as competition over scarce resources (Campbell 1965 in Esses et al. 1998), as attempts to blame weak groups for social problems (“scapegoating”) (Zawdski 1948 in Esses et al. 1998), as a function of group identity (Tajfel & Turner 1986 in Esses et al. 1998),[2] and as related to symbolic racism (conflict stemming from a perceived threat to the Protestant work ethic) (Sears 1988 in Esses et al. 1998).[3] Esses et al. (1998) theorize that a combination of these theories is at work, but that conflict only occurs when (1) there is a perception that some other group (such as immigrants) might successfully compete for scarce resources, and (2) that group (immigrants) is different enough to stand out. Additionally, in an analysis of what is known as SDO (social dominance orientation) Bobo & Hutchings (1996) noted that certain people (with high SDO) are more prone to see the world as a competitive place and Pratto et al. (1994) noted that certain personality types (with high SDO) are prone to seeing life as a zero sum game.

One issue related to all of these theories is that these explanations of discriminatory behavior toward immigrants are not necessarily evident to those who are discriminating against immigrants. For example, DiTomaso (2013) noted that most native-born whites scarcely think about discrimination at all even though they act in discriminatory ways. Therefore, some types of discrimination toward immigrants are not even conscious. This presents a sizeable challenge in that some who are perpetuating discrimination are not even aware that they are doing so. Additionally, some elite native-born elite whites simply do not want to be removed from their position of power (Massey 1995, 632). Massey notes that when this is the case, these native-born individuals are hesitant to discuss their feelings (Massey 1995, 632).

Immigrants may also be treated as objects of hostility by other immigrants that are competing for resources and status (Gold 2010) or immigrants that have achieving some degree of elevated status in the host country. For example, Ilya Gutman (2013) though an immigrant herself, has become outspoken against undocumented immigrants. Whatever the intentions of those who discriminate against them, immigrants continually feel low status, and are the objects of discrimination and even acts of hostility (Gold 2010).

Two questions flow out of this discussion. (1) How can the barriers created by immigration myths and threat narratives be overcome? (2) What would be the results of removing these barriers? Notably, some might prefer the first question to read, “Should the barriers be overcome?” This question is addressed within the second question by illustrating the preponderance of positive as compared to negative outcomes of giving immigrants greater freedoms and fewer restrictions.

In order to address these questions, I now turn to a discussion on myths of immigration. As Brooks (2013) stated, “many of the fears associated with immigration, including illegal immigration, are overblown.”

Myths about Immigration

One of the most commonly employed myths in that immigrants steal jobs from and decrease wages of native-born individuals (Gray 2013; Yglesias 2013). There is a preponderance of evidence that this is largely not the case. For some time, research supported the idea that immigrants do not take jobs from most native-born Americans; however, even the argument that immigrants take the jobs of lower skilled natives is weakening (Brooks 2013). Economics professor Madeline Zavodny (Brooks 2013) found that each additional foreign-born worker in science and technology fields is associated with the creation of 2.62 new jobs for natives. In general, 90% of Americans benefit economically from the presence of immigrants (Gold 2009).

There is also increasing evidence that immigrants do not lower wages even for lower-skilled native-born Americans, as had previously been thought (Brooks 2013). Often immigrant workers push lower-skilled native-born workers into higher paying jobs that require communication skills over manual labor (Brooks 2013). Additionally, the research that supports a decrease for lower-skilled native-born Americans notes that the decrease is very small or even “insignificant” (Brooks 2013). Therefore, news stories and alarmists that report that immigrants lower wages for lower-skilled Americans can most likely only be referring to these “insignificant” decreases. (For example, one report using data between 1994 and 2007 found that immigration increased wages overall by $3.68 per week, and decreased the wages for male high school drop-outs by just $1.37 per week—just over $70 per year) (Brooks 2013).

Finally, immigrants not only create jobs by starting businesses that employ people, they are also consumers themselves. Immigration opponents readily paint a picture of immigrants that take American jobs, but rarely mention that each new arrival is another potential customer (that will, in turn, increase business revenues and the need for more workers) (Salas 2013).

Another myth is that illegal immigrants are all criminals. If they will break the law to come into the country, they will break other laws once they are here (Foley 2011). In general, immigrants (both documented and undocumented) are less likely to commit crime than native-born individuals (Gold 2009).Furrow (2013) notes that, while media images sensationalize crime committed by undocumented immigrants, most follow the law. He further notes that most undocumented immigrants wish to maintain a low profile to avoid potential deportation (Furrow 2013). Brooks (2013) similarly notes that “Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are not socially disruptive. They are much less likely to wind up in prison or in mental hospitals than the native-born.” On the more extreme end, some argue that undocumented immigrants are potentially more likely to be terrorists. However, the FBI and CIA have asked for a de-linking of undocumented immigrants and terrorists as those involved in the 9/11 attacks were all in the country with documentation (Salas 2013), and tighter immigration law on the U.S./Mexico border has never resulted in stopping a potential terrorist attack (Johnson & Trujillo 2007). In general, the myth that illegal immigrants possess a higher disposition to break the law once in the country appears to not be well-founded.

An extension of this is the myth that “illegal” immigration is illegal. In other words, some opponents of immigration argue that undocumented immigrants are lawbreakers if only by virtue of having entered the country illegally. Rick Santorum (Foley 2011) and Jeb Bush (Klein, R. 2013) are among the prominent opponents of undocumented immigration on the grounds that those who enter “illegally” have broken the law, and “the law is the law.”

While it is illegal for a company to knowingly hire an individual without work authorization, it is not illegal to seek employment, start a business or work as an independent contractor without work authorization (Carcamo 2013). Additionally, as Garcia (2013) notes, even alleged child molesters and murderers are not labeled as “illegal” and are allowed the due process of law to be pronounced guilty or not guilty. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States” (Garcia 2013). In the words of Garcia (2013):

“Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not — and never have been — criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.”

In short, being in the United States without documentation is not a criminal offense (Garcia 2013). The Supreme Court also recognizes the danger of using the term “illegal” immigrant and avoided the use of such language in their ruling (Garcia 2013). However, it remains the preferred term of the Associated Press and is used by the large majority of journalists (Garcia 2013). This seems to be a direct contradiction of the essence of Nobel Peace Prize winner Ellie Wiesel’s sentiment that “no human being is illegal” (Garcia 2013). Brown (2013) also recognized that the “illegality frame” vilifies immigrants and adds another possible layer of discrimination (in addition to nationality and possibly race) to which immigrants may become victims.

Some opponents of immigration also describe immigrants as a drain on public resources. For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation calls the distribution of benefits to undocumented immigrants a “travesty” and “an assault on the U.S. taxpayer” (Starr 2013). This reflects the fear that immigrants take benefits and give nothing back, or take more out than they give back. Ironically, quite the opposite is the case. Immigrants are up to thirty percent as likely to start their own businesses, and started roughly 25% of tech companies that have more than $1 million in sales (Brooks 2013; Salas 2013). Additionally in 2010, 18% of Fortune 500 companies had at least one foreign-born founder (Scott 2013). These companies together generated $1.7 trillion in revenue and employed 3.6 million workers as of 2010 (Scott 2013). In general, roughly one-fifth of all business owners in the US are foreign born (Tozzi 2012). Additionally, it is estimated that nearly three-fourths of undocumented immigrants pay taxes but do not get a tax return (Foley 2011). These undocumented immigrants also pay roughly $9 million per year into the Social Security system from which the majority will most likely never benefit (Foley 2011; Salas 2013). Overall, immigrants pay $90 billion in income tax (with another $520 billion in taxes with mismatched social security numbers for which they will not get a return) in addition to sales tax, as well as direct and indirect property tax (Salas 2013). In one study in Los Angeles County, CA, immigrants were responsible for only 6% of all hospital costs, even though they represented 12% of the population (Salas 2013).

In short, if immigrants in the United States were given a path to citizenship, they would pay $48 billion into the system and only take $23 billion out (Brooks 2013). It is no wonder that many who base their decisions on fear instead of facts focus more on the $23 billion immigrants would pull out of the system than on the $48 billion they would pay in. To use a business analogy, deporting all undocumented immigrants because of what they take out is like failing to start a business because it would cost $23 billion, even though it would generate $48 billion in revenue.

Another fear that immigration opponents harbor without substantiation is the idea that if immigration is legalized it will “open the flood gates.” In essence, those who support this myth argue that the state will be overwhelmed by excessive demand on its resources or that too many immigrants will vanquish American values and culture (so-called). People like Washington Times journalist Daniel Martin Gray (2013) seem to fear that if immigration is made legal, it will open the flood gates and pillage resources from native born Americans (as well as destroy “American” culture) (see also Gold 2009). Ironically, many who believe in the power of the free market do not see it at work in matters of migration flows. Yet, this appears to be the case, at least to a degree. For example, net migration between the US and Mexico hit zero in the years following the great recession (Passel et al. 2012). Ironically, migration flows between the United States and Mexico have been rather constant—in spite of whether the migrants have been sanction or discouraged by legislation (Passel et al. 2012; Massey 2013).  However, it appears that slumping economic conditions in the United States may have slowed migration in a way that legislation could not.

Additionally, the myth that immigrants do not assimilate and will not/do not learn English appears to be unsubstantiated. Nearly all children of African and Asian immigrants and 90% of second generation Latino immigrants know English fluently (Brooks 2013; Salas 2013). Additionally, the fears that immigrants of today will not assimilate are reminiscent of fears about immigrants of 100 years ago who have assimilated quite well (Gold 2009). In general “there is reason to believe that the most recent wave of immigrants will, like those of earlier cohorts, prove to be good citizens and valuable assets to their adopted country” (Gold 2009, 410).

Some opponents of immigration also paint a picture of immigrant entrepreneurs as mostly engaged in “microbusinesses” that are too small to make a big difference in the economy. Microbusiness is defined as very small businesses usually employing fewer than five employees. These businesses often have just one employee and could consist of anything from collecting scraps for recycling to online sales. Microbusiness might easily be written off by many as only a means of survival for many immigrants who do not have the capital (Martinez 2011; Gold forthcoming) to engage in larger business activities. However, there is enormous potential in microbusiness for immigrants (Dawson et al. 2012; CAMEO 2013; Catholic Charities 2013; KPCC 2013). While the immigrant microbusiness ownership is understudied, microbusinesses in general created 5.5 million jobs between 2004 and 2010 in the United States (CAMEO 2013).[4] This is even more impressive when compared to large businesses (those with more than 500 employees) that lost 1.8 million jobs during that same time period (CAMEO 2013). With only one exception, microbusiness has created jobs every year during that time period, and has created more jobs than businesses of all other sizes with only one exception (in 2006 large businesses created 1,072,710 jobs compared to 1,001,960 for microbusiness) (CAMEO 2013). In other words, microbusiness has led the economy in job creation throughout (and probably in part because of) the recession.

A growing number of businesses and organizations are designed to cater to immigrant microbusiness owners and potential owners (Dawson et al. 2012; CAMEO 2013; Catholic Charities 2013; KPCC 2013). Many undocumented immigrants may be especially drawn to microbusiness as a sort of “loophole” for employment in the United States as small business owners and independent contractors need not prove their work authorization (Carcamo 2013). Microbusiness may also be one of the only alternatives available to many undocumented immigrants if they are resource disadvantaged (Light & Gold 2000). As Light & Gold (2000) observed “Selling pencils on the street requires only pencils and a tin cup. Manufacturing pencils requires millions in start-up capital, so it is no wonder that millionaires manufacture pencils and paupers sell them” (210).

However, many immigrants may be able to start these businesses due to low start-up capital requirements, but they may also lack cultural or social capital in order to grow their business in the way they want (Light & Gold 2000). While there are a growing number of programs to help immigrants start and grow their microbusinesses, it is unlikely that there are enough of these businesses to support the total number of immigrants. These organizations are vital for immigrants who may already be working to learn new ways of doing things in a new country, especially given the very complex processes involved in starting a small business in the United States (Klein, K. 2013).

Despite the obstacles microbusinesses appear to give a boost to the economy (especially in times of recession), and immigrants appear to be at the forefront of this activity. To illustrate this, Sanburn (2012) notes that immigrants own 20% of small computer design companies, 37% of restaurants, and 90% of dry cleaning businesses, and this trend is increasing.

A final myth is that immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) operate “shady” businesses in the informal economy that contribute very little to society as a whole (see Gold forthcoming, 2). Research being conducted on this topic reveals a different story. For example, Jones and colleagues (2004) note that the elimination of the informal economy would result in eliminated revenue, jobs and would harm already fragile business districts where this activity often takes place. Steven Gold (forthcoming) also notes that many businesses in the informal economy pay taxes (and often at a higher rate than other businesses). The informal economy is beginning to be recognized not as a pervasive and integral part of developed economies rather than a pathological feature of developing nations that will go away with time (Portes & Sassen-Koob 1987; Jones et al. 2004; Gold forthcoming). The informal economy has been recognized as playing a vital role in filling otherwise unmet economic needs in several industrialized nations (Jones et al. 2004; Kloosterman et al. 2010; Martinello & Rath 2010, European Commission 2013).

Immigrants without many entrepreneurial resources are active in the informal economy (Sassen 1996; Light 2004; Gold 2010, 11, 15). Gold further observes that immigrant groups that have low official rates of self-employment are actually active in the informal economy where their entrepreneurship often goes undetected (2010, 15). The informal economy is not to be confused with the illegal economy (Portes & Sassen-Koob 1987; Gold 2010, 162; Gold forthcoming). The latter consists of the sale of “legally prohibited goods and services” and the former consists of sales of goods and services which occur off the books, pay no taxes and are unregulated (Gold 2010, 162; Gold forthcoming).

While the informal economy may seem shady, obscure and distant from the average American, research over the past decades reveals that it is quite the opposite. For example, nearly half of all independent contractors work in the informal economy, and 83% of households use goods or services from at least one informal source (Gold forthcoming, 8). In summary, Gold observes that:

“Popular stereotypes suggest that the informal economy is the province of very small businesses, unskilled and marginal workers, and low wages. However, systematic investigation reveals that this view is largely unfounded. Rather, the informal economy is more dynamic and more economically significant than many experts have assumed.” (Gold forthcoming, 2)

Additionally, while some try to blame lower income immigrants and other marginalized populations for the existence of the informal economy, it actually can be attributed instead to macro-level social and economic patterns including “global competition, high rates of unemployment, costly and restrictive regulations and the inability of established firms to adapt to ever changing environments” (Gold forthcoming, 3).

Immigrants often have jobs in the informal and formal sectors at the same time (Gold forthcoming). Additionally, they are often driven into the informal economy in order to escape jobs that are menial, dirty, dangerous, low status, or otherwise less desirable (Gold forthcoming). Immigrants are often compelled by systematic discrimination (policy or interpersonal discrimination) into these less desirable jobs; however, they are also stigmatized for working in the informal economy.

Overall, activities in the informal economy add jobs, stimulate the economy, revitalize rundown business areas, reduce the need for reliance on federal benefits, create extended business hours and introduce new products and ways of doing business (Jones et al. 2004; Carcamo 2013; Gold forthcoming). These benefits are so substantial that a number of scholars advocate a strategy of supporting rather than sanctioning the informal sector (Jones et al. 2004; Kloosterman et al. 2010, Gold forthcoming). Gold (forthcoming) additionally argues that many types of business that cater to wealthy elites (such as hedge fund management) are partly free from regulation, yet many local governments are hesitant to encourage informal business despite the advantages they promote for disadvantaged people to take care of themselves and rely less on state benefits.

Conclusion

Overall, there is a preponderance of evidence that immigrants benefit societies far more than they take from them. However, discussions of immigration too frequently draw upon myths that vilify immigrants rather than convey facts about the pros and cons of immigration. Too frequently, it is expressed or implied that immigration or even immigrants themselves are the “problem” in the immigration problem. I argue that the problem is neither immigration (documented or undocumented) or the individual immigrant (documented or undocumented). The problem is the barrier that is placed in front of immigrants through discriminatory labels and the perpetuation of immigration myths that vilify rather than humanize immigrants. These discriminatory attitudes can also become embodied in official laws or acts of legislation which may further perpetuate the destructive myths.

Ironically, many who are opposed to legalizing immigration seem to be selectively in favor of the idea of free market economics, claiming that de-regulation works to optimize economic outcomes in other cases, but not for immigration. There is abundant evidence that if immigration were legalized, there would be an enormous economic benefit –by some estimates over $20 billion dollars (Brooks 2013; Salas 2013).

This may conjure up the idea that this refers only to founders of large tech start-ups; however, there is mounting evidence that immigrants who own microbusinesses and those in the informal economy can make enormous economic contributions that would be even larger if immigrant-hostile policies were removed or reduced.

Path to citizenship legislation holds the potential to increase the productivity of immigrants by giving them a way to have a legal status. As Castañeda (2013) points out, what immigrants care about most is amnesty—the ability to be given a fair chance without fear of apprehension and deportation, and the chance to add value to American society. However, legal status will not be enough by itself if individuals continue to harbor myths about immigrants as threats, rather than drawing informed conclusions based on research findings and facts.

References

Blumer, H. (1958). Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7.

Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951–972. doi:10.2307/2096302

Brooks, D. (2013, January 31). Immigration Is the Easy Problem. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/opinion/brooks-the-easy-problem.html

Brown, H. E. (2013). Race, Legality, and the Social Policy Consequences of Anti-Immigration Mobilization.American Sociological Review, 78(2), 290–314. doi:10.1177/0003122413476712

CAMEO. (2013). Micro-business, THE Job Creators (Brief) (pp. 1–2). San Francisco, CA: California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity. Retrieved from http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/08/20/11046725/MicroBizNetJobCreators.pdf

CAMEO. (n.d.). Micro-Business Success Stories – Immigrants. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.microbiz.org/about-micro-business/success-stories/success-stories-immigrants/

Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Nebraska SYmposium on Motivation, D. Levine (ed.).

Carcamo, C. (2013, September 14). Immigrants lacking papers work legally — as their own bosses. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/nation/la-na-ff-immigration-business-20130915

Catholic Charities. (n.d.). Microbusiness Training. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.ccomaha.org/services/microbusiness-training-a-development

Catholic Charities – Microbusiness Training and Development Program. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.nebraskaentrepreneurship.com/resource/catholic-charities/

Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino threat: constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Dawson, S., Breen, J., & Satyen, L. (2002). The Ethical Outlook of Micro Business Operators. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 302–313. doi:10.1111/1540-627X.00059

DiTomaso, N. (2013). The American non-dilemma racial inequality without racism. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9781610447898/

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup Competition and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration: An Instrumental Model of Group Conflict. Journal of Social Issues,54(4), 699–724. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x

European Commission. (2013). WORKING ON THE FRINGES – FP5/FP4 projects – Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities – Research & Innovation – European Commission. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/projects/118_en.html

Feagin, J., & Elias, S. (2013). Rethinking racial formation theory: a systemic racism critique. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(6), 931–960. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.669839

Fiscal Policy Institute. (2012). Immigrant Small Busines Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy (pp. 1–37). New York, NY: Fiscal Policy Institute.

Flores, L. A. (2003). Constructing rhetorical borders: Peons, illegal aliens, and competing narratives of immigration. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(4), 362–87.

Foley, E. (2011, December 8). Rick Santorum: Undocumented Immigrants Are All Law-Breakers. Huffington Post. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/rick-santorum-undocumented-immigrants_n_1136398.html

Furrow, R. (2013, August 10). The problem with illegal immigration? It works! Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/over-my-head/2013/aug/10/problem-illegal-immigration-it-works/

Garcia, C. (2012, July 5). Why “illegal immigrant” is a slur. CNN. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html

Gold, S. J. (Forthcoming). Undocumented immigrants and self employment in the informal economy. InHidden Lives and Human Rights in America: Understanding the Controversies and Tragedies of Undocumented Immigration, Lois Ann Lorentzen (ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio Press.

Gold, S. J. (2009). Immigration benefits America. Society, 46(5), 408–11.

Gold, S. J. (2010). The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (Reprint edition.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Gray, D. M. (2013, November 18). Illegal aliens: Making America a third-world country. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/gathering-storm/2013/nov/18/illegal-aliens-making-america-third-world-country/

Gutman, I. (2013, November 15). Solve the immigration problem — but fairly. MinnPost. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/11/solve-immigration-problem-fairly

Hainmueller, J., & Hisox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.

Johnson, K., & Trujillo, B. (2007). Immigration Reform, National Security After September 11, and the Future of North American Integration, 1369–1406.

Jones, T., Ram, M., & Edwards, P. (2004). Illegal immigrants and the informal economy: Worker and employer experiences in the Asian underground economy. International Journal of Economic Development, 6(2), 98–119.

Kenny, C. (2012, October 28). Why More Immigration, Not Less, Is Key to U.S. Economic Growth.BusinessWeek: global_economics. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-28/why-more-immigration-not-less-is-key-to-u-dot-s-dot-economic-growth

Klein, K. E. (2013, January 3). Small Banks Succeed Courting Immigrant Business Owners. BusinessWeek: small_business. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/small-banks-succeed-courting-immigrant-business-owners

Klein, R. (2013, March 19). Republicans’ Immigration “Pathway” Dance. ABC News. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/republicans-immigration-pathway-dance/

Kloosterman, R., Van Der Leun, J., & Rath, J. (2010). Mixed embeddedness: (in)formal economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands. In Selected Studies in International Migration and Immigrant Incorporation, Marco Martiniello & Jan Rath (eds.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Koba, M. (2012, September 4). How Immigrants Are Changing US Businesses. CNBC.com. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.cnbc.com/id/48646997

KPCC (2013 Nov. 7) Event: Micro-business means business. (n.d.). KPCC. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.scpr.org/events/2013/11/20/1227/micro-business-means-business/

Lee, J., & Bean, F. D. (2012). The diversity paradox: immigration and the color line in twenty-first century America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Light, I. (2004). Immigration and ethnic economies in giant cities. International Social Science Journal, 181, 385–98.

Light, I. H., & Gold, S. J. (2000). Ethnic economies. San Diego: Academic Press.

York: Hyperion.

Martinez, R., Avila, B., Santiago, O., & Tello Buntin, J. (2011). Latino-Owned Businesses: Startup Fund Sources and Implications in Comparison to Other Racial/Ethnic Groups (No. 48). Julian Samora Research Institute.

Martinielo, M. Rath, J. (eds.) (2010). Selected Studies in International Migration and Immigrant Incorporation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Massey, D. S. (1995). The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States. Population and Development Review, 21(3), 631–652. doi:10.2307/2137753

Massey, D. S. (2013). America’s Immigration Policy Fiasco: Learning from Past Mistakes. Dædalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Mead, G. H. (1962 [1934]). Mind, Self, and Society. C.W. Morris (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Passel, J., Cohn, D., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2012, May 3). Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

Portes, A., & Sassen-Koob, S. (1987). Making it Underground: Comparative Material on the Informal Sector in Western Market Economies. American Journal of Sociology, 93(1), 30–61.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (n.d.). Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.

Salas, R. A. (2013, August 30). What do we know about immigrants in Michigan and the U.S.? Grand Rapids Business Journal. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.grbj.com/blogs/5-diversity/post/76743-what-do-we-know-about-immigrants-in-michigan-and-the-us

Sassen, S. (1996). New employment regimes in cities: The impact of immigrant workers. New Community, 22, 579–94.

Scott, I. (2013, September 6). Want To Create American Jobs? Remove American Barriers To Immigration.Forbes. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/06/want-to-create-american-jobs-remove-american-barriers-to-immigration/

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In ELiminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, P.A. Katz & D.A. Taylor (eds.) (pp. 53–84). New York: Platinum.

Skerry, P. (2013 May 9). It Takes Two: Immigration and the Rule of Law. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/05/09-immigration-law-skerry

Starr, P. (2013, August 20). Giving Illegals Access to Welfare “An Assault on U.S. Taxpayer,” Researcher Says | CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/giving-illegals-access-welfare-assault-us-taxpayer-researcher-says

Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Children of Immigration. Harvard University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations: International Social Psychological Perspectives, S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (eds.). Chicago: Nelson.

Tozzi, J. (2012, June 14). Immigrants’ Role in the Small Business Economy Grows. BusinessWeek: small_business. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-14/immigrants-role-in-the-small-business-economy-grows

Yglesias, M. (2013, April 18). The Strange Moral Calculus Of Low-Skill Immigration Restrictions. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/18/strange_moral_calculus_of_low_skilled_immigration.html

Zawadzki, B. (1948). Limitations on the scapegoat theory of prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 123–41.

 

[1] Lee & Bean (2012) also addressed the connections between legislation and individual attitudes.

[2] See also Blumer’s (1954) seminal work on group position.

[3] Such sentiments can be seen in articles as recent as 2013 (Gray 2013). The argument is that immigrants are “gate-crashers” and just do not know American ways of doing things.

[4] NB: Immigrant businesses have been observed to hire more employees than those of their native-born counterparts (Fairlie 2012).