The Democratic Consequences of Anti-immigrant Political Rhetoric: A Mixed Methods Study of Immigrants’ Political Belonging
Anti-immigrant political rhetoric is proliferating in Europe, inspiring research to examine the potential effects on public opinion. However, studies of the reactions of first- and second-generation immigrants—the objects of this rhetoric—remain scarce. This article argues that political rhetoric should be treated as a context of integration affecting political outcomes, in particular political belonging. To that end, the article combines qualitative evidence from focus group discussions conducted in Denmark, a high-salience context, and quantitative evidence from cross-national survey and party manifesto data from 18 Western European countries over a 12-year period. In addition to demonstrating a negative mean effect, the analyses show that those most in focus of contemporary political messages (Muslims and immigrants with shorter educations) are most affected, suggesting a sophisticated processing of political rhetoric. In contrast, traditional explanations concerning structural incorporation, generational integration, and exposure to rhetoric are not supported. The article discusses the implications of the results for democratic inclusion in contemporary Europe.
KeywordsPolitical rhetoric Immigrant integration Political incorporation Political belonging Mixed methods
I am grateful for helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers, former editor Professor Peterson, current editor Professor Radcliff, participants at the 2017 American Sociological Association Conference and participants at the Centre for Immigration Policy Evaluation workshop, Concordia University.
Internal Grant, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.
- Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
- Foner, N., & Simon, P. (2015). Fear, anxiety, and national identity. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
- Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.Google Scholar
- Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gerstle, G. (2006). The political incorporation of immigrant groups: An historical perspective on the American Experience. In P. Strum (Ed.), American Arabs and political participation. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
- Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American LIfe: The role of race, religion and national origin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hochschild, J. L., & Mollenkopf, J. H. (2009). Bringing outsiders. In J. H. Mollenkopf & J. Hochschild (Eds.), Transatlantic perspectives on immigrant political incorporation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Research resources in comparative political behavior. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (pp. 865–899). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2018a). Foreign-born population (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/5a368e1b-en
- OECD. (2018b). Foreign-born unemployment (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/ba5d2ce0-en
- Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (3rd ed.). Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- Simonsen, K. B., & Bonikowski, B. Forthcoming. Is Civic Nationalism Necessarily Inclusive? Conceptions of Nationhood and Anti-Muslim Attitudes in Europe. European Journal of Political Research.Google Scholar
- Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., Regel, S., & Werner, A. (2018). The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2018a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
- Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar