Display Full Text | Download Full Text
216.48 kB PDF file

Degree

MA, University of Cincinnati, Arts and Sciences : Sociology, 2008.

Abstract

The topic of immigration has appeared episodically as a contentious issue in American political history. Historically, race has been a central component within the public discourse and the reasoning behind many political policies regarding immigration. However, it does not seem controversial to say that overtly racist rhetoric appears to have less visibility in the contemporary political landscape. In this paper, I explore what immigration rhetoric looks like today, in particular the reasons “immigration reform” advocacy groups offer for justifying excluding immigrants settling in the United States, in particular by distinguishing them from what they consider true Americans. I contrast website based racial purity arguments used by members of the Aryan Nations to cultural purity arguments used by members of immigration reform groups such as the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), American Immigration Control (AIC) and Balance. I show that both racial purity arguments and cultural purity arguments are similar in form, structure and function. Both types of arguments argue that each type of purity is fundamental, immutable, inherited and necessary for the public good. Both types of arguments are also used to justify limiting immigration.

Subject Headings

Sociology

Keywords

immigration; political sociology; rhetoric

Committee / Advisors

Rhys Williams, PhD (Committee Chair)
Anna Linders, PhD (Committee Co-Chair)
Kelly Moore, PhD (Other)

Pages

49p.

Document number: ucin1227301852
Permalink: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1227301852

This ETD has been downloaded 137 times (through March 2013)