From Progressive Pioneer to Nativist Crackdown: The Transformation of Immigrant Policy in Oklahoma

Abstract

In the absence of comprehensive national immigration legislation, the debate over immigration has devolved to the states. Scholars have studied why states adopt punitive policies toward immigrants and why states differ in their treatment of immigrants. However, none has sought to analyze the transformation from an integration to a punitive policy regime. From 1996 to 2005, Oklahoma pursued an integration police regime designed to welcome immigrants and promote their social integration. In 2007, Oklahoma reversed its stance and has since pursued a punitive policy regime designed to make life difficult for unauthorized immigrants and to encourage them to leave. We contend that a longitudinal analysis of immigrant policy making within a single state provides a richer and more dynamic understanding of the interplay of state political institutions, societal interests, policy narratives, and the national political environment in making policy than analyzing the differences between states at a single point in time. Related Articles Related Media MichaelCamerini, and ShariRobertson. 2010. “The Senators' Bargain.” How Democracy Works Now: HBO. http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the‐senators‐bargain/index.html KariHuus. “Turmoil in Tulsa: The illegal immigration wreck.” MSNBC . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19466978/#.UGYjUU3A8rW Websites: by Watch‐ImmigrationOklahoma. . The Oklahoman: Newsok.com. http://newsok.com/oklahoma‐watch/immigration/ Tulsa World. . “Faces of Immigration.” http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/continuingcoverage/default.aspx/Faces_of_Immigration/32 Ante la ausencia de una reforma inmigratoria comprehensiva a nivel nacional, el debate sobre la inmigración ha tomado lugar en los estados. Académicos han estudiado el por qué los estados adoptan políticas punitivas hacia los inmigrantes así como por qué los estados difieren en su tratamiento hacia los inmigrantes. Sin embargo, ninguno se ha dado a la tarea de analizar por qué estados que inicialmente están abiertos a la inmigración posteriormente adoptan políticas punitivas que alientan a los inmigrantes a marcharse. Nosotros afirmamos que un estudio longitudinal de la creación de políticas inmigratorias dentro de un solo estado provee un retrato más rico y dinámico de la interacción de las instituciones políticas estatales y las narrativas políticas que un análisis sobre las diferencias entre estados en un determinado punto en el tiempo. Para explorar este tema, nos enfocamos en Oklahoma. De 1996 a 2005, se ejerció una política integradora diseñada para recibir nuevos inmigrantes. En 2007, Oklahoma dio marcha atrás y desde entonces ha ejercido una política estricta diseñada para hacer más difícil para los inmigrantes no autorizados a vivir en Oklahoma y alentarlos a abandonar el estado.

Applying a Community Violence Framework to Understand the Impact of Immigration Enforcement Threat on Latino Children

“…Over the past several decades, heightened immigration policy activity and anti‐immigrant legislation have produced a “culture of fear” among Latino and immigrant families in the U.S. (Turner & Sharry, ; Vargas, Sanchez, & Juárez, ; p. 460). The passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C §1101) criminalized the hiring of undocumented people and increased the capacity of immigration enforcement and internal policing of immigrant communities.…”

“…Over the past several decades, heightened immigration policy activity and antiimmigrant legislation have produced a "culture of fear" among Latino and immigrant families in the U.S. (Turner & Sharry, 2012;Vargas, Sanchez, & Juárez, 2017;p. 460).…”

Anti‐Immigrant Sentiment and the Adoption of State Immigration Policy

“…As the majority's political attitudes turn more negative toward immigrants, they use their political leverage in the form of rewarding or punishing representatives in the voting booth (Canes-Wrone, Brady, & Cogan, 2002), or in undertaking direct communication with representatives (Brader, Valentino, & Suhay, 2008). Political elites or special interests are then able to take advantage of growing anti-immigrant sentiment to form constituencies supporting restrictive or hostile policies toward minorities, in the case of this study, immigrant minorities (Turner & Sharry, 2012).…”

“…For example, the public routinely overestimates immigration population sizes and fails to update their knowledge when corrected (Hopkins, Sides, & Citrin, 2019). Other studies show that irrespective of substantive immigration levels, interest group activity plays a key role in either mobilizing public opinion for restrictive policies (Turner & Sharry, 2012), influencing legislatures to adopt welcoming policies (Freeman, 1995;Nicholson-Crotty & Nicholson-Crotty, 2011), or into adopting a blended mixture of inclusive and exclusive policies (Hofmann, Jacobs, & Petrzelka, 2019). In a recent study, Rogers (2017) calls into question if the public is aware enough of roll-call votes to meet this condition of accountability for legislation that receives very little media attention.…”

“…The literature on drivers of state immigration policy emphasizes the role of the public opinion in pushing policy choices in more restrictive direction (e.g., Hero & Preuhs, ; Hopkins, ; Kehrberg, ; Turner & Sharry, ); however, many of these studies employ demographic variables as proxies for mass immigration attitudes, rendering the predictive nature of existing findings uncertain. Immigration population size and proportional changes in the immigrant population has been linked to competing hypotheses between demographic‐based attitudinal proxies and policy outcomes (Filindra, ).…”