THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT
The dominant story in the United States since the 2016 elections, however, is not the mistrust of African Americans, but the open rage against immigrants, which goes well beyond purely economic resentment.
Immigrants do not only “take” “our” jobs; they are “criminals and rapists” who threaten the very survival of whites. Interestingly, within the US the fewer immigrants there are living in a state, the less liked they are. Nearly half of residents in states with almost no immigrants—like Wyoming, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas—believe immigrants represent a threat to American culture and values.25
This suggests the worry has more to do with identity than with economic anxiety. The logic seems to be more that in the absence of much contact, it is easy to imagine that the unseen group is fundamentally different.
This phenomenon predated 2016, but Trump’s election made it that much easier to talk about openly. In a clever experiment highlighting this, researchers recruited online respondents in eight deep-red states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming.26 Just before the 2016 election, they offered respondents a financial incentive to give money to an anti-immigration charity. Specifically, they asked respondents to authorize them to make a $1 donation to the organization on their behalf, and offered to pay them an extra fifty cents if they agreed. For some people the choice was purely private. For some randomly selected others the offer was presented in a way that implied a small chance they would be personally called by a member of the research team to verify their decision—so at least one person would observe their decision and discuss it with them. Before the election, people in this second group were less likely to agree to donate than people who could do it purely privately (34 percent versus 54 percent).
But when the same experiment was conducted right after the election, that difference entirely disappeared! The victory of someone who expressed overt anti-immigration views had freed respondents up to openly give money to an anti-immigrant group.It is perhaps reassuring that previous waves of migrants to the United States experienced similar rejection before they were ultimately accepted. Benjamin Franklin hated the Germans: “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.… Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.” Jefferson thought the Germans were unable to integrate. “As to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses,” he wrote, “wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government.”27 America tried to limit Chinese immigration as early as the nineteenth century and it was eventually banned. In 1924, quotas were introduced with the aim of limiting immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans (Italians and Greeks).28
And yet each wave of immigrants eventually was accepted and assimilated. The first names they chose for their children, the occupations they ended up in, the way they voted, and what they bought and ate converged with those of the local population. In turns, the locals adopted the once-foreign first names and foods: Rocky is an American hero and pizza is one of the five basic food groups.
The same phenomenon happened in France. French people rejected the Italians. Then they rejected the Poles. Then they rejected the Spaniards and the Portuguese. Every wave of migrants eventually became integrated, but in each case at first the French believed it was “different this time.” By 2016, it was the Muslims’ turn to be rejected.
Where do these preferences and attitudes come from? Why do we seem to look for a new enemy even as we become reconciled to the previous one?