Jamie Longazel

Moral Panic as Racial Degradation Ceremony: Racial Stratification and the Local-level Backlash against Latino/a Immigrants

State- and local-level ordinances attempting to ‘crack down’ on undocumented immigration have been proliferating across the United States. Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act (IIRA), passed in 2006, was one of the most visible of these laws. Using the events leading up to the passage of the IIRA as a case study and integrating racial stratification and moral panic theories, I conceptualize passage of this punitive law as a racial degradation ceremony performed in the wake of allegations of a Latino-on-white homicide and amid local demographic shifts and economic decline. Specifically, by comparing local media coverage of two homicides committed in Hazleton (one that led to the passage of the IIRA, a second that was far less impactful) and studying official discourse at city council meetings where the ordinance was introduced and passed, I find that officials relied heavily on the racialized tropes of the war on crime in constructing an ‘illegal’ immigration ‘problem’, thus degrading the city’s new immigrants, symbolically uplifting the white majority, and in turn reaffirming the racial order.

Experiencing Court, Experiencing Race Perceived Procedural Injustice Among Court Users

Critical race theorists (CRTs) posit that racism is endemic in American society, neutrality is a myth, experiential knowledge of racial minorities should be privileged and race is merely a social construction and is therefore unable to explain attitudes or behaviors. Analyzing a national sample of citizens with recent court experience, the present inquiry draws from these insights as it seeks to understand whether racial/ethnic groups differently experience court, and whether such differences could be accounted for by how actors in the court proceeding differently experience race. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in perceived procedural injustice indeed exist, but by following CRT we are able to get beyond a mere acknowledgment of their existence and work toward understanding how they exist. We also consider the role played by a number of other factors relating to one’s courtroom experience in shaping perceived procedural injustice and discuss both the theoretical and practical implications of our research.

Beware of Notarios: Neoliberal Governance of Immigrants as Crime Victims

Drawing on David Garland’s (1996, 2001) observations about the ‘limits of the sovereign state’, we seek in this article to develop a critical understanding of the recent response in the USA to ‘notario fraud’—an unlawful act committed when a non-lawyer poses as an immigration attorney. While efforts to protect immigrants from fraud on their surface represent a counter to recent anti-immigrant policies, our analysis of materials distributed by what we term an anti-notario fraud apparatus suggests that such activity amounts to neoliberal governance. Specifically, we study immigrant advocacy groups’ discourse around the issue and argue that anti-notario efforts are akin to responsibilization. We also study how law enforcement officials discuss the issue and theorize how a one-dimensional framing of notarios as villains supports the neoliberal regime by protecting the state’s sovereignty to manufacture what Nicholas De Genova (2002) has called ‘deportability’.

Becoming Welcoming: Organizational Collaboration and Immigrant Integration in Dayton, Ohio

Coinciding with a national trend toward the localization of immigration law and policy, the city of Dayton, Ohio, passed the “Welcome Dayton—Immigrant Friendly City” resolution in 2011. This article focuses on the central role played by a coalition of local organizations, staffed by or advocating on behalf of immigrants and refugees, that led up to the initiative’s passage and during its implementation. Characterized by collaboration, such efforts laid the groundwork for a policy that is attentive to the needs of immigrants and refugees. When they subsequently worked alongside city officials, local organizations also managed to affect meaningful local-level institutional changes. Dayton, as a result, became a leader in regional and national efforts to create more welcoming cities. Drawing mostly on several years of participant observation, the article adds to the literature on immigrant integration a rich description of the role local organizations play in the process of becoming welcoming. It also shows how an approach rooted in the humanitarian concerns of immigrants/refugees and their allies can pose a meaningful challenge to the exclusionary rhetoric and inaction that currently plague immigration law and policy.

Racist Localisms and the Enduring Cultural Life of America’s Death Penalty: Lessons from Maricopa County, Arizona

Abstract There has been a tremendous decline in the use of the death penalty in the United States. Recent research using county-level data shows that a small minority of locales in the country account for death sentences and even fewer for executions. Drawing on theoretical work that seeks to account for why these locales continue to use capital punishment, we provide in this chapter a thick description of Maricopa County, Arizona, one of the most active death penalty locales in the contemporary United States. In doing so, we demonstrate how capital punishment operates in a field of violently defended racial boundaries. Our chapter shows the roles of various local actors across time in fortifying such racial boundaries through historical white terrorism and more recent reinforcement of zones of racial exclusion that are embodied especially in communicated fears of “illegal immigrant gangs.” We contend that the case of Maricopa County points to the importance of attending to racist localisms as a catalyst for the continued implementation of the death penalty in the United States.