Saving Bulgaria's Jews: an analysis of social identity and the mobilisation of social solidarity

This paper investigates the arguments used in public documents to mobilise Bulgarians against the deportation of Jews in World War II. We focus on the key documents relating to the first wave of mobilisation in 1940–1941 as provided by Todorov in The Fragility of Goodness ( 2001 ). We demonstrate that these documents are based on three types of argument. The first, category inclusion, treats the Jews as part of a common ingroup rather than as constituting a separate outgroup. The second, category norms, proposes that help for those under attack is a core aspect of ingroup identity. The third, category interest, suggests that the ingroup will be harmed if Jews are persecuted. In each case, the predominant category on which arguments are based is national identity (i.e. ‘we Bulgarians …’). This analysis is used to validate and extend a social identity of model of helping. The theoretical and practical implications of such an approach are considered in the discussion. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social Representations: A Normative and Dynamic Intergroup Approach

This commentary outlines an approach to social representations which emphasizes the normative and dynamic nature of shared knowledge. Social representations both connect and divide people, for example through shared ingroup and outgroup stereotypes derived from antagonistic social representations. Through asymmetrical intergroup communication and influence, in turn, social representations are formed, maintained, and contested. In this dynamic process, powerful majorities attempt to define the meaning of new or otherwise important information as a function of their group norms, while subordinate minorities employ propaganda techniques of social influence to resist majority influence and propose alternative positions.     

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR STUDYING FEMALE MARRIAGE MIGRANTS

Transnational marriages account for a significant proportion of family-based immigration to North America. An increasing number of immigrant men are choosing to marry women from their countries of origin, and an increasing number of nonimmigrant men are choosing to marry women from other countries. Existing studies on the experiences of foreign brides entering North America have highlighted their vulnerability to spousal maltreatment, including unique forms of immigration abuse (e.g., threats of deportation). Their vulnerability to maltreatment has been attributed to the gender-insensitive nature of family immigration policies, the women's lack of awareness of their rights and immigration status, and their husbands' cultural beliefs about women's roles. This article describes three interrelated theoretical frameworks that can inform further research, practice, and policy development related to female marriage migrants. The frameworks draw on cross-cultural models of gender-based violence, seminal work on the psychology of women, and international human rights research.     

Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms

Social categorization is claimed to elicit a tendency to conform to ingroup norms, which may result in attitude change after exposure to information on the opinions of other ingroup members. It was hypothesized that the degree to which arguments represented ingroup norms, i.e., were prototypical, would affect their potential influence on attitudes, such that prototypical arguments would be perceived as being of higher quality and would elicit more attitude change. Moreover, prototypical arguments were expected to elicit more argument elaboration. Two experiments were designed to test these predictions. In Experiment 1 subjects were exposed to both a set of pro and a set of contra arguments, while one of the sets was allegedly prototypical of ingroup attitudes. In Experiment 2 subjects were exposed to either prototypical or a-prototypical pro or contra arguments allegedly originating from in- or outgroup. In both studies conformity to ingroup norms was observed. In addition, prototypical ingroup arguments elicited higher quality ratings in the first study. Indications of higher elaboration of prototypical ingroup arguments were found.     

The Distress of Citizen-Children with Detained and Deported Parents

In immigration enforcement, many undocumented immigrants with children are often detained and deported. But it is their US-born citizen-children that have been overlooked in immigration debates and enforcement policies and practices. Citizen-children are at risk for negative psychological outcomes when families are fractured and destabilized by arrest, detention, and deportation. The children risk being torn from their parents and, often, their undocumented siblings. To add to the small but growing empirical base on the effects of living under the threat of deportation and actual deportation of parents, we compared the psychological status of three groups of citizen-children: (1) a group living in Mexico with their deported parents; (2) a group in the US with parents affected by detention or deportation; and (3) a comparison group of citizen-children whose undocumented parents were not affected by detention or deportation. We compared children on self-report and parent-report measures of behavioral adjustment, depression, anxiety, and self-concept. Across the three groups we found elevated levels of distress, and differences between children who had experienced a parent’s detention or deportation and those who had not. We discuss findings in the context of children’s clinical needs, future research, and implications for immigration enforcement policy and practices.     

Return Imaginaries and Political Climate: Comparing Thinking About Return Mobilities Among Pakistani Origin Migrants and Descendants in Norway and the UK

The political climate on immigration and diversity in various European societies has previously been analysed in relation to media representations, policy regimes and public opinion. This paper focuses more narrowly on how political climates affect migrant and post-migrant generations, as inhabitants of these European societies. We focus on the impact of ambivalence resulting from perceived lack of recognition as full citizens in European societies among migrants and their descendants. Ambivalence in relation to experiences of particular traits of the political climate is further connected with ideas about mobility—how migrants and descendants may think about return migration—what we discuss in terms of ‘return imaginaries’. Culture, ideology and representations are seen as significant for contemporary politics, not only with expressive but also with formative roles. With this perspective, the analysis explores three politically heated areas of debate: about immigration control, about social cohesion and integration agendas and about terrorist attacks. These three areas were inductively selected, drawing on analysis of qualitative data collected among Pakistani origin migrants and descendants in Norway and the UK. The two countries of residence are purposefully chosen because they in different ways reflect political climates affected by the rise of xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe.     

Social Rights and Migrant Realities: Migration Policy Reform and Migrants’ Access to Health Care in Costa Rica,Argentina, and Chile

Immigration poses a significant challenge to states’ existing social protection systems, especially in developing countries that are already struggling to provide social services for their citizens. In particular, immigration produces a tension between citizenship rights—those extended only to citizens, and social rights—rights extended by the state to others within their national territory. Immigration raises questions not only about the rights and access of migrants to health and other social services but also the level and quality of provisions to citizens. We draw on literatures on welfare regimes in Latin America, welfare magnets, and the legitimacy of social rights to examine the nexus of migration and health care policy in Costa Rica, Argentina, and Chile—three countries that have recently pursued immigration reform. We argue that variation in the extension of immigrants’ social rights to health is explained by the interaction of existing migration and social policies, the nature of the health care system in each country, and, in some cases, international and regional norms.     

Ethics of Immigration: The Issue of Convicted Criminals

In this paper, I explore and probe Joseph Carens’ remarks, in his recent book The Ethics of Immigration, on the immigration status of foreign convicted criminals who have served their sentence, and who wish either to immigrate into our country or who are already here. Carens rejects deportation when it is not called for by considerations of national security, and agrees that considerations of public order can justify barring convicted foreign criminals from entering the country. I broadly agree with his arguments against deportation: my remarks in this respect are clarificatory and exploratory as much as anything else. But (I argue) both his argument for open borders and his scepticism with respect to radical cosmopolitanism are in tension with his claim that past criminal convictions can act as a bar to entry.     

Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image

This article proposes a new theoretical framework for the reviewed state‐of‐the‐art research on collective narcissism—the belief that the ingroup’s exceptionality is not sufficiently appreciated by others. Collective narcissism is motivated by the investment of an undermined sense of self‐esteem into the belief in the ingroup’s entitlement to privilege. Collective narcissism lies in the heart of populist rhetoric. The belief in ingroup’s exceptionality compensates the undermined sense of self‐worth, leaving collective narcissists hypervigilant to signs of threat to the ingroup’s position. People endorsing the collective narcissistic belief are prone to biased perceptions of intergroup situations and to conspiratorial thinking. They retaliate to imagined provocations against the ingroup but sometimes overlook real threats. They are prejudiced and hostile. Deficits in emotional regulation, hostile attribution bias, and vindictiveness lie behind the robust link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. Interventions that support the regulation of negative emotions, such as experiencing self‐transcendent emotions, decrease the link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility and offer further insights into the nature of collective narcissism.     

Adolescents' evaluations of those who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer norms

Early and middle adolescents' judgements and reasonings about peers who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer group norms were examined across three studies with varying intergroup contexts. Study 1 participants included (N = 199) non-Arab American participants responding to an Arab American/non-Arab American intergroup context. Study 2 included (N = 123) non-Asian and (N = 105) Asian American participants responding to an Asian/non-Asian American intergroup context. Study 3 included (N = 275) Lebanese participants responding to an American/Lebanese intergroup context. Across all three studies participants responded to ingroup and outgroup deviant group members who challenged their peer groups to either include or exclude an outgroup peer with similar interests. Findings indicated that adolescents approved of peers who challenged exclusive peer norms and advocated for inclusion of an ethnic and cultural outgroup, and disapproved of peers who challenged inclusive group norms and advocated for exclusion. Non-Arab and non-Asian American adolescents displayed ingroup bias when evaluating a deviant advocating for exclusion. Additionally, age differences were found among Asian American adolescents. Findings will be discussed in the light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices.     

How Do U.S. Christians and Atheists Stereotype One Another’s Moral Values?

Moral conflict between Christians and atheists is becoming increasingly heated amidst the U.S. “culture wars,” yet research has been mostly silent regarding how these groups stereotype one another’s moral values and beliefs. We used moral foundations theory to better understand the nature of such stereotypes. In Study 1, U.S. Christian and atheist participants completed measures of moral values from their own perspective as well as the perspectives of typical atheists and typical Christians. Whereas atheists believed their ingroup endorsed fairness/justice values more than Christians, Christians believed their ingroup endorsed all moral values more than atheists. Moreover, both groups held (often extremely) inaccurate stereotypes about the outgroup’s values. In Study 2, participants wrote explicitly about outgroup morality. Atheists typically described Christians more negatively than Christians described atheists, regardless of the moral foundation of concern. Also, Christians’ negative impressions drew primarily from the Authority foundation, and both groups drew heavily from the Care foundation in both their positive and negative depictions. Implications for addressing the growing conflict between Christians and atheists in the United States are discussed.     

Testimonial Engagement: Undocumented Latina Mothers Navigating a Gendered Deportation Regime

This community-based qualitative study investigated the real or threatened impact of immigration enforcement on undocumented mothers as they navigate a “gendered deportation regime.” We analyzed seven interviews with undocumented mothers who have experienced the deportation of someone close to them and live under the constant threat of deportation. Based on an inductive, team-based analysis process, we present case examples of four themes that illustrate how undocumented mothers describe their experience negotiating the aftermath and threat of deportation: quality of life, material possibilities, balancing the social, and engaging with advocacy networks. Findings expand on previous research emphasizing the impact of “deportability” on the everyday lives of undocumented immigrants by attending to gendered aspects of immigration enforcement. As a collaborative research team composed of social work faculty, graduate students, and immigrant rights activists, we also critically engage with our attempts to meld research and community organizing in order to illustrate challenges that scholars and social service practitioners face when working with undocumented populations.     

Ethical Ambiguities in Participatory Action Research With Unauthorized Migrants

There is increased recognition of the importance of well-designed scholarship on how immigration status and policies impact migrants in the United States, including those who are unauthorized. Some researchers have looked to community-based and participatory methods to develop trust, place migrants’ voices at the forefront, and engage collaboratively in using research as a tool for social change. This article reviews three ethical ambiguities that emerged in the process of a series of participatory action research (PAR) projects with migrants in the United States, many of whom were unauthorized. Specifically, three themes are discussed: (a) the tension between the human desire to respond to injustices, and the challenges of doing so in ways that recognize one’s privilege and power as an outsider and supports the migrants’ agency and autonomy; (b) the complex definition, explanation, and dimensions of “risk”; and (c) the complexity of using a methodology (PAR) that prioritizes participants’ collective identity and community in the context of regulations that are designed primarily to protect individuals.     

The Effect of Group Polarization on Opposition to Donald Trump

Using focus groups, we examined support and opposition for Donald Trump prior to the 2016 presidential election. When ingroup members participate in discussion, this conversation alone typically strengthens and intensifies members’ initial attitudes. We used a pre‐ to post‐focus‐group questionnaire to assess attitudes toward Trump, his campaign, and policies. We argue that group polarization influenced people’s opinions about Trump such that attitudes became more extreme after discussion with like‐minded individuals. We report changes for Trump nonsupporters for which group polarization occurred on attitudes toward illegal immigration, political correctness, the military, women, and veterans after the group discussion. For each, level of support for Trump’s views decreased. To further explore potential psychological mechanisms associated with group polarization, we employed network science methods to examine the structure of the language associated with these issues and identify potential drivers of attitude change. Results provide some support for a common mechanism for group polarization, which may be driven by language dynamics specific to individual attitudes.     

Justice for Irregular Migrants,Refugees and Temporary Workers: Some Issues for Carens

The Ethics of Immigration is a wonderfully comprehensive and insightful journey through all the major contemporary ethical issues concerning immigration. Through this outstandingly well‐crafted work, Carens builds a compelling case for many important positions on how we should treat migrants. Nevertheless, I believe there are some tensions in his arguments that could do with more analysis. I present some of these issues in this article. These include some important problems with arguments for the right to education for children of irregular migrants and those concerning admission, his general position on refugees, and his views about what is required in order to treat temporary workers fairly.     

Immigration Policies in Italy: Their Impact on the Lives of First-Generation Moroccan and Egyptian Migrants

This paper analyzes the impact of Italian immigration policies on migrants’ lives. Policies and changes in policies can affect migrants’ capabilities to stabilize themselves in the host country, in terms of legal residence and secure labor conditions, as well as their chances of becoming part of the host society. We argue that, together with border controls, these are crucial ways through which immigration policies may have the postulated effects on the lives of migrants. We use data from 59 in-depth interviews conducted with first-generation Moroccan and Egyptian migrants living in two Italian cities, Turin and Rome, in the period 2011–2013. The results show that Italian immigration policies do not successfully control migration inflow, but effectively hinder the stability of migrants’ legal status and the status transition from temporary residence to permanent residence and subsequent Italian citizenship. In this way, Italian immigration policies largely affect migrants’ capabilities to be part of the host country; this gets in the way of integration, social cohesion, and future migration projects.     

Was It One of Us? How People Cope with Misconduct by Fellow Ingroup Members

How do group members cope with misconduct by members of their own group? Strong evidence for a positive bias in people's evaluations of their own group and its members suggests that an ingroup perpetrator is likely to be treated more leniently than an outgroup perpetrator. However, research has also demonstrated a “Black Sheep‐Effect”, such that ingroup members who deviate negatively from relevant ingroup norms are evaluated and punished even more harshly than outgroup deviants. Both reactions – positive ingroup bias and the Black Sheep Effect – may serve the same goal, namely maintaining positive regard for the ingroup. In this paper, we present several moderators that have been shown to affect responses to negative ingroup deviance. We propose a model that incorporates and organizes these moderators in order to predict whether negatively deviant ingroup members will receive especially lenient or rather harsh and negative evaluations from their fellow ingroup members.     

Affective responses to own violations of ingroup norms: the moderating role of norm salience

The findings from two experiments support the argument that the salience of a relevant ingroup norm may moderate the affective consequences of one's normative violations. Participants' counternormative behaviour only influenced their self‐reported affect under conditions of high norm salience. This relationship was mediated by participants' perceptions that their expression of ingroup favouritism was discrepant from a group norm of intergroup fairness. The presented evidence extends previous research in two ways. First, it qualifies prior work concerning the affective impact of normative ‘discrepancy’ on self‐directed negative affect. Second, it shows that increased self‐directed negative affect can be produced by deviations from the norms of a situationally salient and identity‐relevant reference group. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Business or Bureaucratic Dominance in Immigration Policymaking in Canada: Why was Mexico Included in the Caribbean Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program in 1974?

This article considers why Mexico was added to the Caribbean Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Program in Canada in 1974. It also asks how the conflicting interests of the host country’s bureaucracies, its business community, and the sending countries’ representatives influence the formation of policies on seasonal migration programs? The article suggests that recent versions of political economy, which emphasize a neoliberal turn in Canadian immigration policy, help only partly to explain why Mexico was added to the Caribbean Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program in 1974. The author argues that political economists need also to pay attention to the independent interests of immigration bureaucrats and bureaucracies in the policy-making process. Canadian immigration officials were responsive to employer interests, but also gave the green light to Mexican migrant workers as a way to solve a particular legitimacy crisis that they were facing in the early 1970s. From immigration bureaucrats’ point of view, this policy also had the effect of helping to resolve embarrassing and politically explosive challenges to its claimed ability to supply Ontario farmers with suitable supplies of farm labour.