Say It

What Trump Doesn’t Know About Southern Conservatives and Immigration

There’s a long, complex story of conservatives’ relationships with Latino immigrants.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Julie M. Weise
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
JULIE M. WEISE
Aug. 7, 2015, 6:30 a.m.

Last night’s Re­pub­lic­an de­bate show­cased the GOP’s pre­dict­able im­mig­ra­tion di­vide: The audi­ence cheered when Don­ald Trump de­fen­ded his earli­er pro­voc­at­ive rants, seem­ingly con­firm­ing the Re­pub­lic­an base’s anti-im­mig­rant sen­ti­ments. Mean­while, Jeb Bush re­it­er­ated his sup­port for leg­al­iz­a­tion while throw­ing a bone to the Right in the form of a com­mit­ment to bor­der se­cur­ity.

Lead­ing up to the de­bate, Trump got the most at­ten­tion. Mul­tiple polls show that Re­pub­lic­an primary voters op­pose a path to cit­izen­ship for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants even as Bush sup­ports one.

But tele­phone polls, tea-party act­iv­ists, and Trump’s rants ob­scure the longer and more com­plex story of Re­pub­lic­an voters’ re­la­tion­ships with Latino im­mig­rants.

In over 10 years of re­search­ing Mex­ic­an mi­gra­tion to the U.S. South, I have learned that a slice of the Re­pub­lic­an elect­or­ate — rur­al South­ern Re­pub­lic­ans — has cau­tiously and quietly em­braced Latino im­mig­ra­tion over the past four dec­ades, al­beit on their own terms.

Last night, Bush stood by his earli­er in­sist­ence that il­leg­al bor­der-cross­ing was not a felony but an “act of love” to­ward one’s chil­dren. Yet what most con­sidered a polit­ic­al gaffe ac­tu­ally re­flects the sen­ti­ments of a sig­ni­fic­ant group of Re­pub­lic­an base voters: White grow­ers, work­ing-class Whites, and middle-class people in the rur­al South’s tra­di­tion­al ag­ri­cul­tur­al areas.

Latino im­mig­rants have been com­ing to the rur­al South in small num­bers since the 1910s and have dom­in­ated the ag­ri­cul­tur­al labor force there since the 1980s. From the early 20th cen­tury through the 1960s, they mostly picked cot­ton along­side poor Afric­an-Amer­ic­an and White laborers. But since the post­war eco­nom­ic ex­pan­sion and civil rights move­ment cre­ated new op­por­tun­it­ies for White and Black work­ers, Lati­nos have be­come the main source of labor for all of South­ern ag­ri­cul­ture.

Work­ing-class Whites have not com­peted with im­mig­rants for ag­ri­cul­tur­al jobs in dec­ades and, thus, are re­cept­ive to grow­ers’ pro­nounce­ments that Latino im­mig­rants “saved” en­tire loc­al eco­nom­ies.

Ar­riv­ing to ra­cially di­vided com­munit­ies in the wake of the civil rights move­ment, Lati­nos were ini­tially met with sus­pi­cion and ex­clu­sion. But over time, that sus­pi­cion gave way to ac­cept­ance as ag­ri­cul­tur­al and evan­gel­ic­al com­munity lead­ers suc­cess­fully used their loc­al clout to frame the is­sue for rur­al White people from across the eco­nom­ic spec­trum.

Work­ing-class Whites have not com­peted with im­mig­rants for ag­ri­cul­tur­al jobs in dec­ades, and thus are re­cept­ive to grow­ers’ pro­nounce­ments that Latino im­mig­rants “saved” en­tire loc­al eco­nom­ies. Dur­ing the time I spent con­duct­ing re­search in South­ern Geor­gia, I heard stor­ies of anti-Latino in­cid­ents but ob­served that, over­all, loc­als sup­por­ted their pres­ence in town. When I tell this to blue-state lib­er­als, they find it sur­pris­ing, be­cause it con­tra­dicts their ste­reo­types about the rur­al South. But upon re­flec­tion, it makes sense, con­sid­er­ing who the key play­ers are in rur­al South­ern com­munit­ies.

White evan­gel­ic­als, who have dom­in­ated civic cul­ture in the rur­al South, play an im­port­ant role in the gen­er­al­ized ac­cept­ance of Latino im­mig­rants.

They heard echoes of their own im­mig­ra­tion dis­cus­sions in Bush’s lan­guage of “love.” For them, Lat­in Amer­ica was not a far-off scary haven of drugs and dis­ease. It was the place they ven­tured to build houses as mis­sion­ar­ies. Many re­turned ex­cited to pur­sue char­ity and evan­gel­iz­a­tion with the Lat­in Amer­ic­ans liv­ing closer to home. One such man I in­ter­viewed, Sonny B., spor­ted a “No to the Obama agenda” bump­er stick­er. But when I asked him about his views on un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants he told me: “I’ve got no prob­lem with them. They ac­cept me, and I ac­cept them.”

For rur­al White con­ser­vat­ives like Sonny, Latino im­mig­rants were not a threat to the fu­ture of White Amer­ica. In­stead, they be­came an op­por­tun­ity for its re­demp­tion: a chance to cul­tiv­ate cos­mo­pol­it­an­ism and “tol­er­ance” in a re­gion shamed by its res­ist­ance to equal­ity for Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans. Re­con­cili­ation with loc­al Black com­munit­ies has been fraught with pit­falls, while char­ity pro­jects in Mex­ic­an mi­grant camps have be­come in­creas­ingly at­tract­ive. For ex­ample, an over­whelm­ingly White Chris­ti­an private school in Peach County, Geor­gia, eagerly ini­ti­ated East­er Egg hunts and oth­er char­ity pro­jects in Mex­ic­an mi­grant camps rather than in the area’s much-lar­ger Black com­munit­ies.

In these deeply red com­munit­ies, im­mig­ra­tion en­force­ment has not been a wel­come op­por­tun­ity to purge un­wanted dead­beats but, rather, an­oth­er in­tru­sion of a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment that would do bet­ter to mind its own busi­ness. In 2011, small-town Re­pub­lic­an May­or Paul Bridges of Uvalda, Geor­gia, joined the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on to chal­lenge an en­force­ment-heavy state im­mig­ra­tion law in court. In 2012, a dis­gruntled neigh­bor form­ally ac­cused Vid­alia, a south­ern Geor­gia com­munity that voted two-to-one for Mitt Rom­ney, of be­ing a “sanc­tu­ary city” for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

As Latino im­mig­rants have in­creas­ingly made their homes not just in places like south Flor­ida but also in re­mote corners of the United States, Bush’s per­son­al con­nec­tion to Latino im­mig­rants is more com­mon than polls and red-state ste­reo­types sug­gest. Up­per-middle-class tea-party sub­urb­an­ites will cer­tainly de­cry Bush’s stance while elite pun­dits will urge him to tout im­mig­ra­tion’s eco­nom­ic be­ne­fits and “leave love out of it.”

While the hos­tile na­tion­al cli­mate of the last sev­er­al years has cer­tainly made in­roads in­to South­ern ag­ri­cul­tur­al com­munit­ies, Bush and his fel­low can­did­ates can rest as­sured that a more open at­ti­tude to­ward Latino im­mig­ra­tion can res­on­ate with primary voters in some deeply con­ser­vat­ive corners of Re­pub­lic­an Amer­ica.

Ju­lie M. Weise is as­sist­ant pro­fess­or of his­tory at the Uni­versity of Ore­gon and au­thor of Corazón de Dixie: Mex­icanos in the U.S. South since 1910.

What We're Following See More »
AN ASTOUNDING OUTCOME
AP Calls Election for Doug Jones
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
INVESTIGATED RUSSIA UNTIL SUMMER
FBI Agents Called Trump an “Idiot” and “Loathsome”
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
LOWER TOP INDIVIDUAL TAX RATE
GOP Could Raise Corporate Tax Rate
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Republican negotiators have a tentative agreement to raise the corporate tax rate in their joint House-Senate tax bill from 20 to 21 percent, two GOP sources tell The Hill ... Another key change in the mix would lower the top rate for individuals from 39.6 percent to 37 percent."

Source:
AT 10 AM
Franken Replacement to Be Announced Tomorrow
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
PER MCCONNELL
AL Senate Winner Won’t Be Seated Before 2018
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login