Why so many Latinos in the U.S. are anti-immigrant

This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The article argues that Latino participation in immigration enforcement and support for restrictionist policies is not an anomaly but part of a long historical pattern in which Latinos have both suffered from and helped administer anti-immigrant measures. This framing aligns with historical work noting that Latino civil rights leaders and organizations have, at various points, backed deportation campaigns and stricter immigration controls for reasons including labor competition and fears about social standing.^[2][26]

• The piece contends that many Latinos occupy an uneasy middle ground in U.S. society—subject to discrimination yet drawn to political movements that promise belonging, security and status—and that this precarious position helps explain why some join agencies like the Border Patrol and ICE or support hard-line politicians. Similar dynamics are reflected in recent research showing that some Latinos blame immigrants for “status devaluation” of the broader Latino community and consciously distance themselves from immigrant Latinos to assert their own belonging.^[1][22]

• The article maintains that economic explanations—such as stable government employment or fear of job competition—only partially account for Latino support for immigration crackdowns, and that deeper psychological and identity-based motives, including a desire for proximity to whiteness and social respectability, are central. Scholarly work on “selective dissociation” similarly describes U.S.-born Latinos excluding less acculturated immigrants they believe attract stigma from the mainstream.^[6][16]

• The piece highlights historical episodes in which Latino leaders and organizations endorsed or enforced anti-immigrant campaigns, citing support for Operation Wetback in the 1950s and the United Farm Workers’ efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to treat undocumented workers as threats to organizing, sometimes even aiding or conducting enforcement actions themselves. Historians have documented that earlier generations of Latino activists in border states and Texas saw undocumented workers as undermining wages and making “the rest of us look unfavorable,” reinforcing the article’s narrative of long-standing ambivalence.^[2][26]

• The article notes that while the civil rights and Chicano movements pushed many Mexican Americans away from overt assimilationist and restrictionist positions, nativist undercurrents persisted, especially around labor competition and anxieties about status in an evolving racial order. It points to Latino ambivalence over California’s Proposition 187 in the 1990s as evidence that support for harsh measures did not disappear, echoing broader survey findings that Latino views on immigration policy have long been mixed, with significant minorities favoring reduced immigration or stricter enforcement even as most oppose demonizing immigrants.^[3][14]

• The piece emphasizes that Latino backing for Donald Trump and the modern right—especially among Latino men and in heavily Latino border regions—illustrates how appeals to order, tradition and hard-line immigration control can resonate within Latino communities. Reporting on Trump’s electoral gains among Latinos, including in border counties, similarly links contemporary support for his immigration agenda to earlier periods when Latino activists and voters embraced anti-immigrant positions in defense of perceived community interests.^[2][11]

• The article argues that the U.S. right has increasingly defined itself less by biological notions of race and more by opposition to multiculturalism, feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration and liberalism, creating ideological coalitions that readily incorporate high-profile nonwhite figures. It cites Latino and Afro-Latino actors on the far right as examples of how movements that vilify immigrants can nonetheless offer conditional inclusion to Latinos who adopt their worldview, a pattern consistent with analyses of Latinos drifting toward Trumpism as a way to assert belonging by “otherizing” more recent immigrants.^[11]

• The piece suggests that Latino immigration agents and restrictionist activists often see themselves not as victims but as defenders of American values and social order, and that this self-image is a key part of the appeal of enforcement roles. Research on “Lat immigrant resentment” similarly finds that some Latinos view immigration from Latin America as threatening their quality of life and social status, and that they seek recognition as distinct from newer immigrants who are perceived as less respected.^[1][22]

• Finally, the article insists that Latino support for restrictionist politics should not be treated as a paradox or as evidence of uniquely reactionary tendencies. Instead, it argues that all communities contain internal contradictions, that pro- and anti-immigrant currents have long coexisted among Latinos, and that recent polling showing some movement away from Trump does not erase the deeper historical roots of Latino nativism. This perspective echoes scholarship documenting wide variation in Latino immigration attitudes across generations, national origins and levels of assimilation, with some segments adopting more restrictive stances over time.^[8][21][25]

Different views on the topic

• In contrast to the article’s emphasis on Latino anti-immigrant sentiment, many polls find that the majority of Latinos hold broadly pro-immigrant views, seeing immigrants as strengthening the United States through their hard work and talents and supporting legal protections for undocumented residents. Pew Research Center surveys, for example, report that large majorities of Latinos say immigrants help the economy and favor paths to citizenship over mass deportation, suggesting that restrictionist attitudes, while present, remain a minority position.^{[3][9][14][18]}

• While the piece stresses Latino support for tougher immigration controls, other research indicates that Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to reject restrictive immigration policies, particularly harsh enforcement measures like workplace raids or local police involvement in immigration status checks. Studies of Latino public opinion show strong opposition to militarized border approaches and local crackdowns, and highlight that most Latinos prefer comprehensive reform and legal avenues over punitive strategies.^[10][18][21]

• The article highlights Trump’s gains among Latino voters, but opposing commentary underscores that these gains are limited and contested, and that most Latinos continue to lean away from the GOP’s most hard-line immigration agenda. National polling finds that Latino voters prioritize relief for long-term undocumented residents and DACA recipients and overwhelmingly support balanced reforms that combine border security with protections for families, rather than sweeping deportations or elimination of social services for immigrants.^[5][9][19]

• The piece suggests that pro-immigrant sentiment in the 1990s and 2000s was an “anomaly,” yet longitudinal data complicate this claim by showing that over the past two decades Latinos have become less likely to say there are “too many” immigrants in the U.S. Pew surveys document a steady decline in the share of Latinos who view immigrant numbers as excessive, alongside rising acceptance of current levels or calls for more immigration, particularly among younger adults.^[12][7][13]

• The article emphasizes identity and status motives behind Latino restrictionism, but other analysts point to economic vulnerability and structural labor market dynamics as primary drivers of support for stricter policies. Research on Mexican American attitudes, for instance, finds that respondents across social strata consider illegal immigration an important problem largely because they fear job competition or wage depression, with working-class concerns about employer practices and discrimination shaping views on enforcement more than aspirations to whiteness or ideological alignment with the far right.^[26][17]

• Where the piece focuses on Latinos who join enforcement agencies or radical anti-immigrant groups, advocacy organizations and public health researchers stress that the broader Latino community suffers disproportionately from anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, and that these harms reinforce support for pro-immigrant reforms rather than restrictionism. Studies link anti-immigrant discourse to increased discrimination, stress and negative health outcomes among Latinos, and civil rights groups warn that when “immigrant” is racialized as “Latino,” even U.S.-born Hispanics become targets, encouraging solidarity and resistance rather than participation in punitive campaigns.^{[4][15][20][23]}

• The article frames Latino ambivalence toward Proposition 187 and other measures as evidence of enduring nativist undercurrents, but some commentators argue that such ambivalence reflects complex trade-offs rather than simple hostility to immigrants. Surveys show that many Latinos simultaneously support increased border resources to combat trafficking and smuggling and oppose policies that separate families or deny basic services, suggesting that their preferences are nuanced and often guided by rule-of-law concerns and humanitarian values rather than straightforward anti-immigrant sentiment.^[5][19][14]

• While the piece foregrounds generational and assimilation effects that can push some Latinos toward more restrictive views, opposing scholarship notes that foreign-born Latinos and many second-generation individuals remain strongly supportive of immigration and skeptical of punitive enforcement. Studies of within-group differences find that, overall, Latinos still express more positive attitudes toward immigration than other racial groups, and that even those who favor reductions in immigration levels often do so within a framework that emphasizes fair treatment and opportunities for those already in the country.^[8][21][25]

• Lastly, some analysts caution that focusing heavily on Latino anti-immigrant actors risks overstating their influence and obscuring the persistent centrality of immigrant rights in Latino political agendas. National and local surveys consistently rank immigration reform among the top concerns for Latino communities, alongside jobs and the economy, and grassroots organizations emphasize mobilization around protecting immigrants rather than enforcing exclusion, complicating narratives that place Latino nativism at the center of the community’s political identity.^[9][16][24]