Geopolitical Rivalries Fuel Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, New Study Finds.
As right-wing populism gains momentum worldwide, immigrants and their descendants often face discrimination, becoming scapegoats in political rhetoric. However, the specific groups targeted by anti-immigrant sentiment vary, and the reasons behind xenophobic behavior remain complex and not fully understood.
A recent study published in the American Political Science Review sheds new light on this issue by introducing the concept of geopolitical rivalry into the discourse on anti-immigrant sentiment. The study finds that citizens are more likely to favor immigrants from non-rival countries over those from countries considered rivals.
The study, co-authored by Kiyoteru Tsutsui, deputy director of APARC and director of its Japan Program, along with Charles Crabtree of Dartmouth College, focuses on the political dynamics between the immigrants’ countries of origin and the destination countries. The authors argue that understanding anti-immigrant sentiment requires looking beyond the individual characteristics of migrants and considering the broader context of international political competition and alliances.
The Role of Geopolitical Relations in Shaping Public Attitudes
Historically, research on anti-immigrant attitudes has centered on factors like race, culture, and economic impacts. Tsutsui and his colleagues, however, suggest that the political relationships between an immigrant’s home country and the host country significantly influence public attitudes. Their research posits that immigrants from countries with tense or adversarial relations with the host country are generally less welcome than those from allied nations.
To test this theory, the researchers conducted a forced-choice conjoint experiment, a method where participants choose between hypothetical scenarios — in this case, potential immigrants with varying attributes, including their country of origin. The experiment was conducted with nationally representative samples in 22 democracies, mostly across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and South Africa. Immigrant profiles were assigned origins from either rival or allied countries, with similar or different racial and cultural characteristics to the majority population in the survey countries.
The results strongly supported the hypothesis: immigrants from non-rival countries were preferred over those from rival countries across all survey countries. The findings also revealed that this preference was so pronounced that immigrants from countries with different racial and cultural backgrounds were favored over those from rival nations.
National Pride and Immigrant Preferences
The study also found that the more respondents felt a sense of national superiority, the more their preferences for immigrants reflected their government’s international relations. Members of ethnic majorities were more likely to exhibit this “rivalry effect,” as they were more strongly identified with their nation compared to minority groups.
For example, in Western Europe, immigrants from Russia were less favored, while in East Asia, Chinese immigrants faced similar hostility. This bias towards immigrants from rival nations often led to a preference for immigrants with different racial or cultural backgrounds, provided they came from allied countries.
Implications for Policy and Future Research
The researchers discovered little evidence of widespread anti-Asian sentiment, or “Sinophobia,” beyond the influence of political rivalry. This trend was consistent across various countries and immigrant origin groups. The study suggests that future research should include a broader range of survey countries, update measures of political rivalry, and consider a wider variety of immigrant origins.
The study offers a new perspective on how geopolitical rivalries influence xenophobia, providing policymakers and researchers with a better understanding of public attitudes towards immigrants. This framework can help in crafting informed immigration policies that promote multiculturalism and social inclusion by addressing the underlying forces that shape public perceptions of immigrants.
