Studies of partisan identification in the U.S. have concentrated on Anglo Americans. We argue that by focusing only on the descendents of naturalized, mostly white, immigrants, that previous research may have been biased toward largely sociological accounts for the development of partisan attitudes. Here we study the partisan affiliations of Latino voters and argue that by examining their partisan attitudes we should find that their partisanship is more explicitly political than Anglos. We utilize a telephone survey of Latino likely voters in the 2000 presidential election and find that Latino voter partisanship is shaped by both political and social factors.

The post-civil rights era has left an important dilemma in U.S. politics. Despite the fact that the United States has become more integrated across racial and gendered lines since the 1960s, inequality, particularly economic inequality, has grown. Although much of that inequality continues to fall along racial, gender, and class lines, the opportunities afforded by the "rights revolution" have also created an important heterogeneity of privilege within marginal groups. As social scientists, how best can we identify the sources and results of this inequality? More specifically, how can we better understand the crosscutting political effects of both marginalization and privilege within and among groups in U.S. society? I contend that intersections theory may be a useful place to begin, and that the idea of intersectionality could provide a fruitful framework with which to understand issues of inequality in the post-civil rights era. Such a framework would help address some of the theoretical problems that sometimes arise within empirical work on marginal groups in political science and, ideally, allow scholars to understand better how experiences of marginalization and privilege affect the shape and character of American political life.

No abstract

No abstract

The United States has endured multiple periods of intensely virulent nativist sentiment and policy, from the Know Nothing movement of the 1850s, to the decades-long stretch leading to and resulting from the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, to Operation Wetback in the 1950s. If the first months of the Trump presidency are any indication, the nation may well be entering yet another such period. The Trump administration's immigration agenda is expansive. Within days of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order closing the U.S. border to certain individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, and suspending refugee admissions for 4 months. The response from both courts and communities was swift, with the courts stepping in almost immediately to halt implementation. In June 2017, the Supreme Court allowed parts of a revised ban to go into effect, allowing the exclusion of visa applicants without a "bona fide" connection to the United States. Trump has also cut in half the number of refugee visas the United States will offer in 2017, severely limiting access to those arguably most in need. Although some questions remain regarding whether Trump will be able to follow through on his campaign promise to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, it is clear that he has plans to significantly increase border militarization. His administration has also taken steps to limit immigrants' appeal options to significantly speed up deportations.