Leo Chavez

We examined the effect of political rhetoric on the targets of that rhetoric. Drawing from scholarship on anti-
Mexican and anti-immigrant rhetoric found readily in various media and scholarship on emotions, we tested four
hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that positive and negative political rhetoric would increase and decrease
positive and negative emotions, respectively. Hypotheses 3 and 4 then predicted that emotional responses
to positive or negative political rhetoric would influence perceived stress, subjective health, and subjective wellbeing.
Data collection occurred between August 2016 and June 2017 at a university in California. A sample of
280 Mexican-origin youth, defined broadly as having at least one ancestor born in Mexico or the participant
themselves born in Mexico, participated in an experiment where they were randomly assigned to one of three
study conditions: viewing (1) positive or (2) negative political rhetoric about immigrants and Latinos in general,
or (3) neutral rhetoric as a control condition before providing qualitative responses to open-ended questions and
completing measures of positive and negative affect, perceived stress, subjective health, and subjective wellbeing.
Qualitative responses indicated that negative and positive political rhetoric elicited a range of negative
emotions and positive emotions, respectively. Quantitative analysis with independent samples t-tests, ANOVA,
and linear regression models found that negative political rhetoric elicited higher negative affect than positive
and neutral rhetoric, and positive rhetoric elicited higher positive affect than negative and neutral rhetoric.
Negative emotional responses, in turn, were associated with participants’ higher perceived stress, lower subjective
health and lower subjective well-being. Conversely, positive emotional responses were associated with
lower perceived stress, higher subjective health, and higher subjective well-being. Positive political rhetoric, by
eliciting positive emotions, can have a salubrious effect. Altogether, these findings suggest that political rhetoric
matters for the targets of that rhetoric.

Birthright citizenship has a deep and contentious history in the United States, one often hard to square in a country that prides itself on being "a nation of immigrants." Even as the question of citizenship for children of immigrants was seemingly settled by the Fourteenth Amendment, vitriolic debate has continued for well over a century, especially in relation to U.S. race relations. Most recently, a provocative and decidedly more offensive term than birthright citizenship has emerged: "anchor babies."

With this book, Leo R. Chavez explores the question of birthright citizenship, and of citizenship in the United States writ broadly, as he counters the often hyperbolic claims surrounding these so-called anchor babies. Chavez considers how the term is used as a political dog whistle, how changes in the legal definition of citizenship have affected the children of immigrants over time, and, ultimately, how U.S.-born citizens still experience trauma if they live in families with undocumented immigrants. By examining this pejorative term in its political, historical, and social contexts, Chavez calls upon us to exorcise it from public discourse and work toward building a more inclusive nation.

Resentment in anti-immigrant and anti-Latino political rhetoric often focuses on perceived demographic changes, white population decline, and economic decline. Resentimiento, by contrast, connotes disgust and anger at mistreatment through hostile words or acts such as those conveyed in negative political rhetoric. To explore the nature of resentimiento, Mexican-origin students at a California university were shown samples of negative (N = 95) or positive (N = 93) statements and visual images about immigrants and Latinos. Their written responses to the negative rhetoric included anger and sadness, feelings of being stigmatized, and bodily reactions. Participants argued that the negative rhetoric suffered from overgeneralizations, racism, and misinformation, and that it failed acknowledge why people migrate, the valiant struggles of families to secure a better life, and the contributions of Latinos and immigrants to US society. The students recast the negative rhetoric as a flawed and inadequate source of repre-sentation and knowledge about them, their families, and their communities. They denied the rhetoric’s epistemological efficacy while at the same time recognizing the emotional toll of being its target.

... Both areas also attract undocumented im-migrants. Dr. Chavez coordinated the interviews in the San Diego area. Dr. Flores, with the assistance of Dr. Lopez-Garza, coordinated the interviews in the Dallas area. Interviews were conducted between June and September 1986. ...

We thank all the reviewers for their expertise, insight and dedication in providing high quality reviews for article submissions to JEMS over the last year. The editorial team is frequently taken aback by the extremely high quality of critique provided by reviewers. Many authors also express their gratitude for this engagement and claim with justification that it has helped to advance their research. Once again many thanks, the quality of the journal is underpinned by your continued support.

... Read: Chavez, “Culture change and cultural reproduction: Lessons from research on transnational migration.” [RESERVE] ... people about the impact of emigration and/or immigration on the their lives. ... Reaction papers 20% Midterm 30% Final 30% Comparative research paper 20 ...

To improve breast cancer control among Latinas, it is important to understand culturally based beliefs that many influence the way women view this disease. We did a telephone survey of randomly selected Latinas and non-Hispanic white (Anglo) women in Orange County, California, to explore such beliefs using questions from previous national surveys and an ethnographic study of breast cancer. Respondents included 803 Latinas and 422 Anglo women. Latinas were more likely than Anglo women to believe that factors such as breast trauma (71% versus 39%) and breast fondling (27% versus 6%) increased the risk of breast cancer, less likely to know that symptoms such as breast lumps (89% versus 98%) and bloody breast discharge (69% versus 88%) could indicate breast cancer, and more likely to believe that mammograms were necessary only to evaluate breast lumps (35% versus 11%) (P < .01 for each). After adjusting for age, education, employment status, insurance status, and income, logistic reg...