Far-Right Extremist Influence on American Immigration Policy.pdf

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

The policies surrounding immigration have been an issue in American politics

since the founding of the United States. As a predominantly Anglo nation, the United

States has generally favored European immigrants and restrictive immigration laws

(Cohn, 2015). Historically, immigrants faced discrimination not only in attempts to come

to the United States but also once living in the country and in efforts to be seen as equal

under the law regardless of race or natural origin. As such, several federal immigration

policies have been based on race, nationality, country of origin, or religion. The first of

its kind that was proposed and placed into law was the Naturalization Act of 1790. This

policy allowed for only free White persons to become natural citizens (Naturalization

Act, 1790). The act was repealed over time, and other laws and court case rulings

superseded it, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment. Many other policies were

enacted over the course of the country’s history; however, the Immigration and

Nationality Act (1965) shifted past discriminatory practices more so than any other

before.

It is proposed in this study that a regressive stance on immigration occurred

during the Trump administration regarding immigration policies based on the rhetoric

that was first introduced while the then-candidate was on the campaign trail. Shortly after

taking office, several executive orders (Exec. Order No. 13,767, 2017; Exec. Order No.

13,768, 2017; Exec. Order No. 13,769, 2017) were signed that prevented certain

immigrant groups from coming into the United States or hindered those who were

already here, primarily non-Whites and non-Christians. This action by the president

reverberated throughout society with far-right extremists applauding the policies while

human right groups, immigrants, progressive political actors, and others condemned the

policies. This study explored how far-right extremist ideology influenced anti-

immigration policies between 2017 and 2021 and the impact those policies had on the

day-to-day lives of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. The findings of this

study can help inform public policy decision makers to create or revise immigration

policies that are based on the influence of far-right extremists. Further, this study will

assist in understanding the relationship those policies negatively impact the lives of non-

White and non-Christian immigrants coming to and living in the United States.

In this chapter, I introduce the history of immigration policies in the United States

and the phenomenon of far-right extremist ideology that influences immigration policy in

the country. I explain the presence of a gap in the literature that was discovered, focusing

on the period between 2017 and 2021 and how policies have a feedback effect. This

chapter also introduces the purpose and nature of the study, the research questions that

were explored, selected definitions, researcher assumptions, the study’s scope and

delimitations, limitations, and the study’s significance.

Background

Shortly after the first federal immigration policies were enacted, other policies

were introduced that expanded discrimination based on race or ethnicity. In 1803,

Congress banned “any negro, mulatto, or other person of colour” (FitzGerald & Cook-

Martín, 2014, p. 89) who were not slaves from immigrating to the United States. Banning

these individuals was based on enslavers fearing anti-slavery campaigns would spread in

the country due to what transpired from the Haitian Revolution that ended in 1804.

The testimony of Chinese witnesses of a suspected murderer was ruled

inadmissible when the Supreme Court of California applied the Civil Practice Act and the

Criminal Act, which stated Indians, Negros, Blacks, or Mulattos could not testify as a

witness or give evidence against a White man (People v. Hall, 1854). The U.S. Supreme

Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) further ruled that “a free Negro of the African

race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves” (p. 393) were not

citizens as described in the U.S. Constitution.

Several policies, including the Page Act (1875) and Chinese Exclusion Act

(1882), specifically targeted certain groups of individuals from China who intended to

immigrate to the United States. In 1907, the United States Congressional Joint

Immigration Commission, also known as the Dillingham Commission, named after its

chairman, Republican Senator William P. Dillingham of Vermont, commenced a 3-year

review of immigration in the country. Results from the commission and its data, although

portraying immigrants positively, ultimately led to the foundation for political discourse

on the racial makeup of immigrants, particularly future quota policies, the

recommendation of literacy tests, and overall federal immigration law up until the

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (USCIS, 2019; Zeidel, 2018). The Immigration

Act of 1917, also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act or Literacy Act, imposed literacy

tests on immigrants as well as Asians living in countries not under U.S. control (Higgins,

2018). In combination with the Immigration Act of 1924, “native white workers had

reason to be confident that the problem of Asian immigration and competition was

permanently resolved” (Chin & Ormonde, 2018, p. 731). Following World War I, the

Emergency Quota Act (1921) placed an annual 3% quota on the number of immigrants of

any nationality and resulted in a drastic decline of Jewish immigrants due to the law’s

target of immigrants from Eastern Europe (Sarna & Eleff, 2017). U.S. Supreme Court

cases of Ozawa v. United States (1922) and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)

denied naturalization for a person born in Japan or India, respectively, since they are not

White and therefore ineligible to be naturalized. The Immigration Act of 1924 further

expressed a desire to stop Asian-born immigrants from coming to the United States. A

fine for bringing such persons to a port was $1,000—equivalent to more than $16,000 in

2022 (Official Data, 2022).

During the Great Depression, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

conducted “coercive” (USCIS, 2020, para. 2) repatriation programs with approximately

400,000 to 1 million Mexicans and Mexican Americans moving, or being removed, to

Mexico. Additionally, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 became the first law to restrict

undocumented entry across the U.S.-Mexico border and attached criminal penalties for

doing so (O’Brien, 2018). Citizens of territories under American authority were allowed

to immigrate to the United States, including the Philippines. With the passage of the

Tydings-McDuffie Act (1934), removing the archipelagic nation as an American

territory, citizens of the Philippines would resort to being considered aliens and held

under the restrictions of immigration according to the Immigration Act of 1917 and the

Immigration Act of 1924.

World War II brought a change of policies that not only were discriminatory but

also worked in favor of the United States. Racial discrimination against Japanese and

Japanese Americans was at its height during World War II, particularly after the attack on

Pearl Harbor by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service. With the signing of Executive

Order 9066, Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas, 10 internment

camps were built on American soil and held approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans

with a majority being native-born American citizens (Karolin & Aden, 2021).

Understanding the need and continuation of an ally close to Japan, Congress passed the

Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, which now allowed Chinese nationals to

immigrate to the United States. The War Brides Act of 1945 allowed foreign-born

spouses and children of WWII service members to immigrate to the United States

regardless of any established quota. This resulted in 114,000 war brides immigrating to

the United States, of which approximately 50% were White and spoke English (Wells,

2019). Due to the repercussions of WWI, several U.S. policies were enacted to assist with

the refugee crisis, including the Displaced Persons Act (1948). However, President Harry

S. Truman acknowledged the antisemitic, discriminatory, and xenophobic policies of the

Displaced Persons Act (1948) and was reluctant to sign its passage, considering Jews

who were in refugee camps after December 22, 1945 were ineligible for American visas

(Walker, 2019).

In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act worked to reform some past

discriminatory policies, like ending Asian exclusion. However, the National Origins

Quota System continued to be enforced with 85% of available annual visas being allotted

to those from Northern and Western Europe. President Truman, again, disliked the

discriminatory policies of the bill and authorized his veto power against it. Congress had

sufficient support for the bill and overrode his veto, effectively making the bill law

(Department of State, n.d.). Two years later, the U.S. government launched a “military-

style campaign” (Johnson, 2019) termed “Operation Wetback,” where more than 1

million Mexican immigrants and Mexican American citizens were forcefully removed

and sent across the border. Tens of thousands of individuals of Mexican ancestry

emigrated or repatriated to Mexico on their own free will to avoid being forced to leave

(Johnson, 2019).

The country’s most significant shift in immigration reform and discriminatory

practices occurred with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Previous policies

that were based on national origin quotas became obsolete, and practices based on “race,

sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence” (Immigration and Nationality Act,

1965, Section 2) were removed. The next few decades primarily focused on refugee

policies and programs. Today’s immigration system is based on this law and dramatically

changed the demographic landscape in America (Ludden, 2006).

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the country, Islamophobia (hatred, fear, and

attempt to exclude Muslims from public life; Asfari et al., 2019) took effect in a social

aspect as well as with laws that govern immigration. The Patriot Act of 2001 authorized

the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (2002) to increase INS

investigators and inspectors and eliminated the Office of Homeland Security’s alien

screening report requirement. Additionally, students already admitted to the United States

on student visas were monitored academically and personally without law enforcement

having to obtain a warrant (Hollinger, 2005). The Homeland Security Act (2002)

consolidated 22 governmental agencies and bureaus into the Department of Homeland

Security with the intent to prevent and respond to natural and man-made disasters (U.S.

Senate Committee, n.d.). This policy was essentially coerced upon Congress by President

George W. Bush and gave “the executive branch an unprecedented level of control over

domestic policy and practice” (Stanhouse, 2004, p. 3).

Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Homeland Security began

permitting those who came to the United States as children to apply for deferred action

(USCIS, 2014) who would otherwise face deportation. Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals (DACA, 2012) did not go so far as to provide a legal pathway to citizenship, as

the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act proposed in

2001. However, DACA provided some protections for those who qualified to live, work,

and study in the United States (Rosenberg et al., 2020). Restrictions still applied to

recipients, including the inability to travel outside the United States without Department

of Homeland Security (DHS) authorization and being eligible for federal student aid;

even though, many DACA recipients are taxpayers (DACA, 2021; Federal Student Aid,

2021; Mayorkas, 2012).

The history of federal immigration policy in America demonstrates that many

policies were enacted based on some fear or dislike of those from certain countries or

regions of the world. Many were exclusory of Asians (Page Act, 1875; Chinese

Exclusion Act, 1882; Immigration Act, 1917; Immigration Act, 1924; Exec. Order No.

9,066, 1942), had antisemitic undertones (Emergency Quota Act, 1921; Displaced

Persons Act, 1948), or treated non-Whites and/or non-Christians differently under the law

(Ahmed & Senzai, 2004; Naturalization Act, 1790; Undesirable Aliens Act, 1929).

Provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 eventually shifted the dynamic

and who would be eligible to immigrate to the United States. However, social issues and

concerns remained, which were demonstrated through Trump’s speeches and the overall

support he received from primarily White males in America. According to the Pew

Research Center (2018), Trump received 62% of the vote from White men, whereas

Hillary Clinton received 32%. Additionally, Clinton received 91% of the Black vote and

66% of the Hispanic vote, whereas Trump received 6% and 28%, respectively.

Almost immediately after swearing-in as the 45th president of the United States,

Trump lived up to his campaign promises. Rather than working with Congress, Trump

signed three executive orders that restricted, limited, or placed heavy burdens on

immigrants, potential immigrants, or jurisdictions with high immigrant populations

(Exec. Order No. 13,767, 2017; Exec. Order No. 13,768, 2017; Exec. Order No. 13,769,

2017). Through this action, a resurgence of non-White and/or non-Christian

discrimination was reignited in U.S. immigration policy with undertones of far-right

extremist ideology not seen since prior to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Further, ramifications of Trump’s social and political rhetoric regarding non-Whites

and/or non-Christians prior to his election remained its course throughout his presidency.

Chants of “Jews will not replace us” and “You will not replace us” were heard during the

2017 Charlottesville rally, which reverberated the White nationalist idea that Whites are

being replaced by those of a different demographic. In this case – Jews (Winston, 2021).

The concept of minorities replacing Whites through immigration, reproduction,

and seizure of political power has been a major concept within White supremacist groups

throughout the 20th century (Garcia-Navarro, 2021). French novelist, Renaud Camus,

first devised le grand remplacement conspiracy theory in his 2012 book, which explained

how non-Whites were immigrating to Europe at extinction-level rates (Williams, 2017).

This idea has expanded into the crux of American White nationalist ideology to a level

that has resulted in violent extremism (Obaidi et al., 2021).

Problem Statement

There is a problem with increased far-right extremist influence on policymakers’

ideology that affects immigration law. Specifically, there is little information on how far-

right extremists’ ideology influences laws to stop non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants, including those from certain Middle Eastern or predominantly Muslim

countries, from entering the United States. This problem impacts non-White and/or non-

Christian immigrants in the United States because of the treatment they experience under

U.S. policy. Reported experiences have included family separation, sterilization, and the

increase of xenophobia and its effects (Ghandakly, 2021). Extreme, far-right ideology has

led to a variety of the electorate believing immigration contributes to the destruction of

culture, labor market competition, crime, terrorism (Stockemer et al., 2020), and

environmental problems (Rowland-Shea & Doshi, 2021). Currently, of the 7,759 reported

hate crime incidents, 61.9% were based on race, ethnicity, or ancestry, and 55.2% of

offenders were White (DOJ, 2021). However, this may have a long-term impact on

immigrants legally entering the U.S and their experiences once here. Many possible

factors contribute to this problem, among which are the belief of racial or cultural

superiority, desire to make far-right ideology law, and/or “replacement theory.”

Literature reviewed for this study identified White racial identity (Bai, 2020), populist

sentiment (Mowatt, 2019), and extremists feeling marginalized (Hales & Williams, 2018)

as the foundation for the focus of other researchers’ studies. Thus far, none of the

literature reviewed examined the voting record on the ideology’s impact on the way

legislators vote on immigration laws. My study fills this gap by contributing to the body

of knowledge needed to address the problem by providing information to public policy

decision makers to formulate and/or change policies on the influence far-right extremists

have on American immigration policy.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how far-right extremists

influence American policymakers in supporting the perspective that immigrants are

replacing White Americans and how that affects non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants. It is intended to conduct a historical analysis of American anti-immigration

policies, possible far-right extremist influence on those policies, and how the policies

impacted non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants between 2017 and 2021. This was

accomplished through utilizing secondary sources around this period by exploring the

historical context to understand the progress or reduction of immigrant rights and

protections in addition to effected non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. This

research may lead to exploring current or future culture in American and the influence

far-right extremism has on policy makers in creating new and restrictive immigration

laws.

Research Questions

Research Question 1: For federal legislation passed in support of anti-immigration

policies between 2017 and 2021, what far-right extremist ideology is found in the

wording of the policies?

Research Question 2: For non-White and/or non-Christian minority immigrants

living in the United States, what themes emerge in their reports of the problems

experienced with the application of anti-immigration policies on their day-to-day lives?

Theoretical Foundation

Policy feedback theory was first introduced by Schattschneider (1935) in the early

20th century by stating that “new policies create a new politics” (as cited in Pierson, 1993,

p. 595). Pierson (1993) developed this concept by synthesizing work from various

political scientists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars who described real-world

examples of how policies have a feedback effect. Mettler and SoRelle (2018, as cited in

Weible & Sabatier, 2018) further contributed to the study of this theory by expanding

upon Pierson’s analysis and investigate how “policies affect political attitudes and

behaviors among mass publics” (p. 106). Policy feedback theory utilizes four streams of

inquiry to assist in understanding how policies influence the behavior of stakeholders:

meaning of citizenship, form of governance, power of groups, and political agendas and

problem definition.

Meaning of Citizenship

One stream of policy feedback inquiry is the meaning of citizenship. In exploring

this stream, it can be understood how anti-immigration policies demonstrated an

individual’s or group’s meaning of citizenship. This concept can be viewed from both

sides of those wanting anti-immigration policies in upholding the status quo of a White

majority under the guise of national security and those who are classified as immigrants

wanting a better life for themselves and their families in the United States. Mettler and

SoRelle (2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018) discussed how immigration has been

a policy concern regarding the meaning of citizenship due to early U.S. policies dictating

the race or national origin of immigrants allowed to be admitted into the country. Further,

immigration policies specify who can be considered a citizen. Such policies have

therefore molded the country’s politics. Certain groups of immigrants have been shown

to be treated differently based on their race, religion, or national origin, which can be

identified through the wording of specific policies. As the United States progressed, some

policies granted immigration to additional groups; however, with the executive orders

that were politically influenced by extreme far-right ideologists, those possibilities were

drastically restricted or all-out barred.

Form of Governance

Once policies are enacted, the governance of those policies can be further

impacted, such as policy alternatives, type of administrative arrangements, and

parameters and limits of government action (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible

& Sabatier, 2018). The capacities of government agencies may need to be adjusted to

meet the requirements of those policies. Additionally, public officials and the public can

perceive what realm the government should be involved regarding the administration of

such policies versus the public sector. Resources also need to be considered, including

mandatory or discretionary budgets. Ultimately, the governance of policies by agencies

can have a negative or positive feedback on how they are handled administratively

(Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018).

Power of Groups

Some scholars argue that new public policies are more likely to form and grow

new groups after the policies’ passage (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible &

Sabatier, 2018). Other scholars argue that organizations, such as trade unions, will

mobilize more than ordinary citizens. Federal immigration policies demonstrated

feedback in the case of far-right extremist ideology influencing the drive of anti-

immigration and organizations composed of immigrants and allies joining forces and

vocalizing abhorrence of discriminatory policies in social and political arenas as well as

through the legal system. Power of groups on both sides of this phenomenon and the

resulting policies were emboldened by political rhetoric and grassroots efforts.

Political Agendas and Problem Definition

Early policies can direct social problems and whether those problems have

enough attention to be addressed politically. Revisions to those policies and overall

reform may be necessary depending upon lawmaker intent and the conflicts over those

policies. Further, as political parties decide to address certain issues, they are likely to

gain momentum from their members and outspoken resistance and criticism from an

opposing party. Immigration is one area where reform has caused massive polarization

between political parties in the United States (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in

Weible & Sabatier, 2018). For instance, policy agendas around the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1965 and its contemporary effect on reducing discriminatory practices

can be associated with the agendas leading up to the executive orders signed by Trump

that were supported by his electorate and those who believed in a nondiscriminatory path

toward immigration.

Nature of the Study

To address the research questions in this qualitative study, the specific research

design included content analysis of selected documents. Qualitative research is consistent

with understanding the perspectives of far-right extremist groups and individuals (Fahey

& Simi, 2018), and content analysis is used to explore communication (talk, text, etc.) to

understand social phenomena (Krippendorff, 2018). Keeping the focus on how far-right

extremists influence policymakers’ ideology affected federal anti-immigration law was

logical with how current policies affect the design of future policies (Mettler & Soss,

2004). Political analysis through exploring events and documents adheres with observing

the promotion or decline of civic engagement, support of interest groups, and institutional

governing (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018).

Purposive sampling was used to select public records of individuals, groups, and

policies. Data were collected from these secondary sources and managed using NVivo

qualitative data management software to organize documents, records, and reports based

on the wording of right-wing propaganda and categorize data for thematic analysis using

concept coding. Data that were captured included Congressional laws between 2017 and

2021, right-wing propaganda, social media posts, speeches, websites, manifestos, and

books. Voting records of legislators and the bills and legislation they supported were

collected as important pieces of data to potentially discover ideological components and

their influence on anti-immigration policy in the United States, such as Executive Order

13769 (2017) and the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE)

Act (2017). Secondary data were also collected from recent non-White and/or non-

Christian minority immigrant and refugee reports to understand their experiences coming

to the United States and how these policies impact their day-to-day lives once in the

country.

Researching members of Congress who are known to have an extreme, far-right

ideology may lead to analyzing their support of certain legislation and the language

therein in addition to the reported experiences of non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants affected by such policies. Reports from non-White and/or non-Christian

minority immigrants living in the United States were reviewed to observe what themes

emerged of the problems experienced with the application of anti-immigration policies on

their day-to-day lives. A sufficient number of publicly available immigrant and refugee

reports was reviewed to reach data and meaning saturation (Hennink et al., 2017) and

analyzed using the same tools and techniques previously mentioned.

Definitions

Far-right extremism: Overall concept for the radical and extreme right, including

nationalism, racism, xenophobia, call for a strong state, anti-democratic attitude, and

opposition to the democratic constitutional state and principle of equality (Sterkenburg,

2019, as cited in Ali, 2021).

Ideology: Personally, or group-held set of unwavering ideas, beliefs, values, and

opinions that guides attitudes, behavior, and rationale.

Immigrant: A person who emigrates from a foreign country.

Non-Christian: A person who does not follow or adhere to the Christian religion.

Examples include Muslims, Hindus, and Jews.

Non-White: A person who does not belong to the socio-cultural or ethnic group

originating from Europe. Examples include Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics.

Report: A first-hand account of something that has been documented either

through written or spoken word; this may include imagery (e.g., video or photography).

Assumptions

An assumption in research is something that is out of the researcher’s control and

without the assumption, the study would be irrelevant (Simon & Goes, 2018).

Assumptions are also understood to occur through subjective experiences of a person and

their position in the world (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). As a relativist-constructivist, I believe

that truth is subjective and knowledge is created by interacting with others (Burkholder et

al., 2020).

In this study, I assumed that reviewing Executive Order 13767 (2017), Executive

Order 13768 (2017), and Executive Order 13169 (2017) would provide an in-depth

exploration of far-right extremist ideology and how it played a role in non-White and/or

non-Christian immigration policy. It was also assumed that in these policies, themes

would emerge in the reported problems non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants had

due to the three orders being federal law. Additionally, the reemergence of far-right

extremist ideology during Trump’s political campaign for president and during his

administration in the political arena was assumed to be tolerated by many in society who

shared the same sentiment regarding Trump’s rhetoric, including those who needed his

support for their own desire to hold political office. Further, it was assumed that

immigrants had not only faced issues in response to the policies but that they would

continue have the desire to move to the United States or remain in the country legally or

illegally beyond the enactment of these policies. Methodologically, I assumed that the

research approach that I utilized would allow me to have a one-to-one association

between the data that I collected and one or more of policy feedback’s four streams of

inquiry.

Scope and Delimitations

Of the 220 executive orders signed by Trump between 2017 and 2021 (Federal

specific to immigration and the restrictions that were placed on non-White and/or non-

Christian immigrants during this timeframe. Focusing on Executive Order 13767 (2017),

Executive Order 13768 (2017), and Executive Order 13169 (2017) that were specific to

anti-immigration or anti-immigrant policies was essential in exploring the influence far-

right extremism had in the drafting and execution of those orders as well as what negative

impacts they had on the day-to-day lives of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants.

Limitations

Several limitations presented themselves throughout this study. To observe and

explore the interactions far-right extremists had with policymakers prior to and during the

Trump administration, it would have been beneficial to have access to Donald Trump’s

Twitter account. That account was permanently suspended 2 days after the January 6

insurrection on the Capitol Building due to the context of his tweets, how they were being

received, and in Twitter’s attempt to mitigate further violence (Twitter Inc., 2021).

After Elon Musk’s 2022 purchase of Twitter, several variables occurred,

including the reinstatement of Trump’s Twitter account on November 19, 2022 after

Musk posted an online poll allowing other Twitter users to vote on whether he should

reinstate the former president’s account (Richard, 2022). After receiving more than 15

million votes, 51.8% voted to reinstate Trump’s account; however, Trump stated that he

would remain on his own social media platform, Truth Social, rather than return to

Twitter (Richard, 2022). This occurred after the data collection and analysis portion of

this study; nevertheless, I attempted to search for specific tweets, but Twitter’s advanced

search feature would not allow me to search anything within the @realdonaldtrump

account. Additionally, the platform stopped displaying tweets after a certain date. This

glitch seemed to occur randomly. In one instance, I could scroll down to December 28,

2020, in another, I could scroll to December 19, 2020, and in another, it stopped at

January 2, 2021. This deemed manually searching unreliable and inconsistent.

Several online archives maintain the tweets of the former president outside the

Twitter platform; however, interactions between Trump and others were not captured.

Further, social media accounts or posts of influential far-right extremists and policy

makers were also not readily available for review and analysis if those accounts and posts

were deleted either by the individual or by the social media company due to policy

violations. Utilizing secondary sources to conduct document analysis presented several

limitations, including the inability to ask for clarification of someone who wrote or

posted something online as well as the requirement to search for applicable sources

located in a variety of platforms or databases.

A potential challenge of bias also occurred when researching this topic. Although

Trump was Republican president, several federal policies occurred during the

presidencies of Democrats, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It is unknown what

limitations would occur when researching their administration’s policies, influential

political or cultural counterparts, and the impact those policies made on non-White and/or

non-Christian immigrants.

Significance

This study is significant in that it explored the nexus between extreme, far-right

ideologies and federal anti-immigration policies that were enacted between 2017 and

2021 and how such policies shape the day-to-day experiences of non-White and/or non-

Christian immigrants living in the United States (Alwan et al., 2021). The results of this

study may provide much-needed insight into the processes by which anti-immigration

language is presented in future American policy and its implications on non-White and/or

non-Christian immigrants (Ahmed, 2021). Understandings from this study can aid public

policy decision makers to formulate and/or change policies on the influence far-right

extremists have on future federal immigration policy in America.

Summary

Chapter 1 introduced the history of immigration policies in the United States and

the issue of far-right extremist ideology influencing American immigration policy. When

researching literature for this study, a gap in the literature was discovered, particularly

during the period between 2017 and 2021, and how those policies had a feedback effect.

This chapter further introduced the purpose and nature of the study, the research

questions that were explored, definitions, assumptions, scope and delimitations,

limitations, and the study’s significance. Chapter 2 will provide a thorough literature

review on American anti-immigration policies and a lead up to contemporary changes of

federal policies between 2017 and 2021 due to the increase of White nationalist sentiment

and condonation of political behavior and speech.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

There is little information on how far-right extremists’ ideology influences laws

to stop non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants, including those from certain Middle

Eastern or predominantly Muslim countries, from entering the United States. This

problem impacts non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants in the United States

because of the treatment they experience under U.S. policy. Reported experiences have

included family separation, sterilization, and the increase of xenophobia and its effects

(Ghandakly, 2021). Extreme, far-right ideology has also led to a variety of the electorate

believing immigration contributes to the destruction of culture, labor market competition,

crime, terrorism (Stockemer et al., 2020), and environmental problems (Rowland-Shea &

Doshi, 2021). Currently, of the 7,759 reported hate crime incidents, 61.9% were based on

race, ethnicity, or ancestry, and 55.2% of offenders were White (DOJ, 2021). However,

this may have a long-term impact on immigrants legally entering the U.S and their

experiences once here. Many possible factors contribute to this problem, among which

are the belief of racial or cultural superiority, desire to make far-right ideology law,

and/or “replacement theory.”

An increase of far-right extremist influence on policymakers’ decisions that affect

immigration law prompted me to search the literature to determine what has been

addressed regarding this situation. Literature reviewed for this study identified White

racial identity (Bai, 2020), populist sentiment (Mowatt, 2019), and extremists feeling

marginalized (Hales & Williams, 2018) as the foundation for the focus of other

researchers’ studies. Thus far, none of the literature reviewed examined the voting record

on the ideology’s impact on the way legislators vote on immigration laws. My study fills

this gap by contributing to academic literature where public policy decision makers can

formulate and/or change American immigration policies that may have derived from the

influence far-right extremist ideology. The purpose of this qualitative study was to

understand how far-right extremists influence American policymakers in supporting the

perspective that immigrants are replacing White Americans to change the cultural

landscape of the country and how that affects non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants.

Contents of this chapter include the search strategy that was implemented when

conducting the literature review, a concise description of the theoretical foundation that

was used when exploring the phenomenon, and an explanation of the conceptual

framework. The chapter also contains a review of current literature related to the

methodology of this study and how researchers have previously approached aspects of

the study. This chapter concludes with a summary of the major themes that were

discovered and an explanation of gaps in the literature.

Literature Search Strategy

In conducting a thorough literature review, it was necessary to use a variety of

sources to gather appropriate material related to the topic and the overall study. To

accomplish this, peer-reviewed articles were selected pertaining to far-right extremism

and its influence on American policy between 2017 and the publication of this

dissertation from a Thoreau multi-database search and Google Scholar. ProQuest

dissertations were also utilized to discover collections of recently used literature by other

PhD candidates in their research. The keywords and a combination of these keywords

that were searched included immigration, policy, far-right extremism/ideology, White

identity/supremacy/ideology, Christian identity, antisemitism, Islamophobia, nationalism,

racism, policy feedback theory, Donald Trump, and Trump administration. Known far-

right extremists showing any connection to, or in support of, the Trump administration’s

immigration policies were searched, including but not limited to, Stephen Miller and

Steve Bannon. To understand the contemporary ideology and behaviors of far-right

extremist groups, it was necessary to search literature on those organizations and their

members. Specific far-right extremist groups included Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Understanding the perspective of these groups and their members required a review of

any associated websites or communication via the internet, including social media. This

included alt-right websites, such as Breitbart News, and extremist websites, such as

Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, and The Gateway Pundit. Sources of material to explore

the nexus between extreme, far-right ideologies and federal anti-immigration policies that

were enacted between 2017 and 2021 included collecting and analyzing Congressional

laws addressing immigration passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S.

Senate between 2017 and 2021 and Executive Orders that were enacted between 2017

and the present.

Theoretical Foundation

The logical connection between policy feedback theory and the nature of this

study include the relationship policies have on providing social benefits to certain groups,

in this case, immigration. The motivation for activists and voters creates political

participation and can reshape the political landscape, including the policy-making process

(Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018). Policies can have a

“feedback effect” where they formulate the attitudes and behaviors of government elites,

social groups, and mass publics (Pierson, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2018). In doing so,

they further affect future policies. At the center of policy feedback theory is the idea that

there is a historical institutional understanding of policy that targets certain populations,

the goals of social groups, and political consequences take shape in the process (Béland

& Schlager, 2019). This approach presents the opportunity to examine anti-immigration

policies already in place (or were in place between 2017 and 2021) and how they are

constructed around the four streams of inquiry explained by Mettler and SoRelle (2018,

as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018). Those streams include the meaning of citizenship,

form of governance, power of groups, and political agendas as well as what influence

they make on individual experiences and future policymaking. From this position, it can

better be understood how policies during the Trump administration created a policy

standpoint that not only led the trajectory of the rest of his term but also influenced the

actions of the Biden administration and the politics that ensued.

In asserting policy feedback theory in conjunction with the political behaviors of

specific interest groups, the political landscape can be understood in terms of political

agendas surrounding the attitudes and behaviors of those individuals who are affected by

those policies (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018). As in the

case of anti-immigration policies, the lives of potential immigrants and immigrants living

in the United States were directly affected. Behaviors of stakeholders were additionally

directed, such as legal challenges being presented to the courts, citizen protests, and

expression of a divisive political environment throughout the country.

Feedback mechanisms were demonstrated by Trump’s supporters and their

political behavior leading up to his election to office. He listened to his constituents,

particularly those of the extreme far-right, when it came to their dislike of immigrants

and minorities, specifically Mexicans, Jews, and Muslims, and his condonement of their

speech and actions. Signing executive orders 13767 (2017), 13768 (2017), and 13769

(2017) solidified his supporter’s external efficacy that the government was responding to

their desires. Through social and political demonstrations, Trump supporters understood

that the government could be influenced (e.g., internal efficacy). The interpretive effects

of these laws directly impacted those immigrants who were targeted by the design and

implementation of these policies (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier,

2018.

Literature Review Related to Key Concepts

A review of the literature demonstrated a gap in the literature regarding an

interconnection between extreme, far-right ideologies and federal anti-immigration

policies that were enacted between 2017 and 2021 and how such policies shape the day-

to-day experiences of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants living in the United

States, specifically using policy feedback theory to frame the study. Other studies that

were researched focused on far-right extremism (Bai, 2020; Bai & Federico, 2021; Butt

& Khalid, 2018; Emmelkamp et al., 2020; Ferguson & McAuley, 2021; Hales &

Williams, 2018; Irina Jugl et al., 2020; Klein, 2019; Lokay et al., McCauley, 2021; Mitts,

2019; Mowatt, 2021), online activities of far-right extremists (Costello et al., 2019;

Hawdon et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2019; Kaakinen et al., 2018; Kaakinen et al., 2020;

Scrivens, 2020; Tien et al., 2020; Weber et al., 2020), far-right extremism in Europe (Ali,

2021), or policies that have extremely negative implications on immigration or

immigrants (Bennett & Walker, 2018; Boys, 2021; Filindra & Manatschal, 2020).

However, it was not found how far-right extremists may have influenced the federal

policies during the Trump administration and how those policies impacted or currently

impact the lives of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants living in the United

States. To explore this phenomenon, several themes needed to be examined, including the

tenets of modern, extreme far-right ideology, individuals and groups who can be

classified as far-right extremists who influenced the federal government prior to and

during the Trump administration, and the policies that were passed during this time that

negatively impacted non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants based on the ideology

of far-right extremists who had a close relationship with the administration. This

literature review will explore these concepts to understand how current policies affect the

design of future policies (Mettler & Soss, 2004). Policy analysis through exploring events

and documents should further adhere to observing the promotion or decline of civic

engagement, support of interest groups, and institutional governing (Mettler & SoRelle,

2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018).

History of Anti-Immigration Policies in America

Non-Whites and/or non-Christians have faced significant difficulties in

immigrating to or permanently living in the United States since the founding of the

country. The first policy specific to immigration was the Naturalization Act of 1790,

which set a precedence on who could become a naturalized citizen based on skin color.

According to the defunct federal law, “any alien, being a free white person … may be

admitted to become a citizen” (Section 1), thusly excluding all other races. If proposed

and passed today, this policy would be perceived as radically far-right considering it

automatically excluded any non-White individual from becoming naturalized citizens

solely based on skin color.

As early as 1875, federal law discriminated against certain individuals and groups

based on their country of origin, nationality, or race. The Page Act (1875) was the first

federal immigration law that prohibited women from China to immigrate to the United

States. This was based on the stereotype that Chinese women were assumed to be

prostitutes (Huang, 2021). A few years later, the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)

prohibited any laborer from China to immigrate to the United States. Antisemitism also

had a historical impact on Jews throughout the world over the past 2,000 years, and the

United States witnessed its share of anti-immigration policies toward Jews prior to World

War II, where federal officers had “unchecked discretionary authority” (Tevis, 2016, p.

323) at immigrant processing facilities and could debar Jews if considered “undesirable.”

Individuals could appeal cases of debarment, but it would take expert knowledge of the

administrative procedures, which was unlikely, and a successful outcome would be

improbable. Xenophobic policies like these can be perceived to be influenced through

extreme far-right ideology, such as the work of racist and eugenicist Madison Grant. His

book, The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916 was commended by presidents

Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge and even used to justify anti-immigration laws

regarding ethnicity and national origin (Hoff, 2021).

Following the Cold War and 9/11, policymakers concentrated their efforts and

focused their attention on anti-immigration policies (Sagás & Román, 2019) regarding

groups that did not share a similar religion or country of origin. Post-9/11, Muslims faced

an uprising in Islamophobia throughout the West (Vandenbelt, 2021), and it continued to

be a focus in American politics. Between 2001 and 2009, $42.6 million was provided to

Islamophobic think tanks (Ali et al., 2011), which inevitably supported the political

rhetoric and consequences of specific policies promised and enacted by Trump.

Policies targeting Hispanic immigrants took an extreme shift in 1994 when

California Governor Pete Wilson supported Proposition 187, which would cut certain

social services to illegal immigrants (Sagás & Román, 2019). Wilson won his reelection

campaign that year “by blaming the migrant ‘invasion’ for the state’s fiscal problems”

(Guerrero, 2020, p. 12). California voters subsequently approved the initiative; however,

the U.S. Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional in 1998 (Sagás & Román, 2019).

Up to today, far-right extremist ideology continues to have a significant impact on

American politics and society in general. From the contemporary origins of the Klu Klux

Klan to neo-Nazism and the alt-right movement, Americans still face racial and cultural

extremism and the lasting impact those ideologies have on local and federal policies and

the ensuing experience on the day-to-day lives of non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants. Exploring that influence on modern-day policies can assist in understanding

something like how the influence far-right extremism played on the Trump

administration and how those policies reshape politics (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited

in Weible & Sabatier, 2018).

Modern, Extreme Far-Right Ideology

Bai (2019) defined far-right extremism as a “manifestation of conservative racial

and political preferences” (p. 3). Nonetheless, due to the disparity of groups not

demonstrating a cohesive organizational structure, the makeup of members’ psychology

has been difficult to understand in context of their goals and influence (Forscher &

Kteily, 2020). Universally, far-right extremist ideology consists of five main

characteristics: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, call for a strong state, and anti-

democratic attitude, such as being in opposition to the principle of equality (Sterkenburg,

2019, as cited in Ali, 2021). Racial culturalism is a component of extremism where White

supremacy is needed to combat the threat of mixing races or foreign people and their

culture (Ali, 2021). Several groups can be considered threats to White supremacists,

including Muslims, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics through the conspiratorial concept that a

“white genocide” is occurring in society (Ramakrishna, 2021) and will pose an

“antidemocratic threat to the country” (Garcia-Navarro, 2021, 2:10). Although this list is

not inclusive of all targets of far-right extremism and subsequent policies proposed or

established in the United States, for the purpose of this study, the literature review

focused on these groups. It is understood other groups have faced rooted prejudice from

modern far-right extremists, including Blacks and the LGBTQ+ community.

Considering the spectrum of far-right extremist ideology allows for a variety of

specific beliefs to manifest, focusing on particular groups was important when

conducting a content analysis on the mentioned federal policies regarding immigration.

To capture those viewpoints under a wide umbrella in relation to the wording of federal

law imposed during the Trump administration, White nationalism appeared to have the

most significant impact when conducting this research. Members of White nationalist

groups believe multiculturalism, diversity, and illegal immigration are threats to the

White race (FBI, 2006). Identifying the contextual basis around those policies and their

intent required a historical analysis, which was found in academic articles, social media

posts, court cases, and periodical clips, among other documents.

Separating active, far-right extremist groups in America and analyzing the

differences in ideology, mainly racial supremacy versus cultural supremacy, has

suggested the goal of understanding how the two groups may eventually gain alliance and

expand their reach in extreme right-wing politics (McCauley, 2021). Several groups and

individuals, including the Proud Boys, have publicly alluded that Jews are replacing

Christians in America (Winston, 2021). Former KKK grand wizard, David Duke,

supported Trump’s election and stated at the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally

that, “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believe in”

(McEldowney, 2017). Trump purposefully welcomed such sentiment and support from

far-right extremists as well as condoned their behavior by stating that there were “very

fine people” (Trump, 2017, as cited in Holan, 2019) among those at the White

supremacist rally. When asked at the first presidential debate in 2020 if he condemned

White supremacists and military groups, Trump stated, “Proud Boys – stand back and

stand by” (Trump, 2020, as cited in Frenkel & Karni, 2021). Immediately after this

statement, members of the group touted on social media how this was an approval of their

actions (Frenkel & Karni, 2021).

The U.S. Census Bureau (Vespa et al., 2020) projected that the non-Hispanic

White population will decline by approximately 19 million people by 2060. This has

caused a collective existential threat toward Whites, which produces defensive political

reactions (Bai, 2019). So much so that The Daily Stormer has a “Demographic

Countdown” clock on the top of the website’s home page, showing non-Whites will be a

majority within 21 years. The solution far-right extremists have identified to slow or even

reverse the White majority decline is to limit, or in some cases, cease non-White

immigration. Through the enactment of Trump’s executive orders, this became a reality.

Specific religions and countries home to non-White and non-Christian majorities were

intentionally targeted and identified within the text of those orders. The federal policies

deterring or stopping immigration mirrored the propaganda found in far-right extremist

and alt-right websites leading up to, during, and after the Trump administration.

Influential Individuals and Groups in the Trump Administration

Trump publicly demonstrated history of far-right speech and other behaviors prior

to becoming a political figure. As early as the 1970s, allegations of racism were made,

including a legal case brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

New York. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil rights case against Trump,

his father, and Trump Management, Inc. in 1973, claiming the defendants operated

racially discriminatory policies and practices against persons of color (United States of

America v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump and Trump Management Inc., 1973).

Moving forward to his first announcement on running for president in 2015,

Trump made discriminatory and unfounded claims against immigrants from Mexico as

well as the Middle East.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending

people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.

They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I

assume, are good people…It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from

all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably – probably – from the

Middle East. (“Full Text: Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid,” 2015)

Words like these attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans who shared in the

same sentiment. This can be attested to when Trump rallied crowds at his campaign

events by cheering “build the wall” and vowed Mexico would pay for it. The slogan used

and popularized at these events quickly symbolized “anti-immigrant policies, xenophobic

discourse, and a cultural counteroffensive that embodies how the Trump Administration

has handled United States immigration law and policy” (Sagás & Román, 2019, p. 22).

Several members of the Trump administration showed substantial influence in

bringing their ideology into the administration and seeing their beliefs be entered into

federal policy. Early in Trump’s campaign, he selected several staff members who had

extreme, far-right ideology, including Steve Bannon, who was executive chairman of the

alt-right website, Breitbart News. Once selected as chief strategist and senior counselor in

the Trump administration, opposition to the announcement quickly commenced,

including the notion that White supremacists would have access to the White House

(Acosta et al., 2016). Once in the White House, Bannon was pictured in front of a

whiteboard in his office, which listed tasks in line with Trump’s campaign promise of

enacting anti-immigration policies (see Appendix A, Boteach, 2017).

Stephen Miller, eventual White House senior policy adviser for the Trump

administration, demonstrated a history of anti-immigration sentiment as early as a youth

and gained philosophical empathy against minority groups from conservative and far-

right members like Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz. (Guerrero, 2020). Throughout

his teenage years, into college, and as a staff member for ring-wing politicians, Miller

expressed xenophobic sentiments, which was attractive to these politicians and their

desire to gain support from other like-minded groups and individuals. Eventually, as an

influential member of Trump’s administration, Miller was “credited with shaping the

racist and draconian immigration policies of President Trump” (SPLC, n.d., para. 1).

Extreme anti-immigration policies suggested by Miller were questioned by other

government officials. Even those with similar ideological standpoints, such as Secretary

of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielsen, were ousted or resigned due to not enforcing

more extreme anti-immigration policies desired by Miller (Tracy, 2019). When Nielsen

resigned, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (2019) released the following statement:

It is deeply alarming that the Trump Administration official who put children in

cages is reportedly resigning because she is not extreme enough for the White

House’s liking. The President’s dangerous and cruel anti-immigrant policies have

only worsened the humanitarian suffering at the border and inflicted vast

suffering on the families who have been torn apart. The Trump Administration’s

increasingly toxic anti-immigrant policies were resoundingly rejected by the

American people in the midterm election. America needs a Homeland Security

Secretary who will respect the sanctity of families, honor our proud heritage as a

nation of immigrants, and restore sanity to this Administration’s policies (paras. 1

& 2).

Less than a week after becoming the 45th president, Trump enacted several

executive orders that mirrored the list pictured behind Bannon (Exec. Order No. 13,767,

2017; Exec. Order No. 13,768, 2017; Exec. Order No. 13,769, 2017). Combined,

Trump’s executive orders prevented “thousands of individuals from entering the United

States because of their religious affiliation or home country, and (apprehended) thousands

of refugees and asylum seekers who…legally sought refuge in the United States” (Sagás

& Román, 2019). Specifically, these federal policies directly impacted the ability of non-

White or non-Christian immigrants to enter the country unlike ever before.

Selected Federal Anti-Immigration Policies Between 2017 and 2021

Executive Order No. 13767

One major agenda item during Trump’s campaign for president was to build a

border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The new border wall would consist of creating a

2,000-mile separation between the two countries, which was vehemently opposed by

social justice groups that argued this would not only harm the well-being of immigrants

but was counterproductive in stopping criminal activity or illegal immigration (Wright,

2019). The message many received about building a wall prior to and during the Trump

administration was not in sync with Trump’s campaign slogan to “Make America Great

Again.” Instead, the concept and action of building a wall were criticized for being anti-

immigrant, racist, and xenophobic—both domestically and internationally (Kang &

Yang, 2021). Trump was able to follow through on his promise once in the White House

by receiving Congressional funding and starting construction on the project.

Signed on January 25, 2017, Executive Order No. 13767 (2017), Border Security

and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, listed several actions the federal

government would take to secure the southern border. The order directed officials to

allocate all resources to construct a physical wall; construct, operate, or control detention

facilities; assign asylum officers and immigration judges to those facilities; terminate

catch and release; return illegal migrants to their originating country pending a formal

removal proceeding; hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; direct the head of each

executive department and agency to report any aid or assistance to Trump, by way of the

Secretary of State, that was given to Mexico over the past five years; develop federal-

state agreements with governors; and end parole and asylum provisions.

Although this order was active throughout Trump’s administration, it was revoked

under the authority of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with the signing of Executive Order

14010 (2021), Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of

Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide

Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border. It was

acknowledged in Biden’s order that border security is essential; however, there must

remain humanitarian efforts to assist those who wish to cross the border and immigrate to

the United States and seek a better way of life. Rather than targeting all potential

Mexican immigrants, Executive Order 14010 specified that policies that target “actual

threats, such as drug cartels and human traffickers” should be invested in rather than

those that target “legitimate asylum seekers” (Section 1).

Executive Order No. 13768

A method for jurisdiction to comply with the administration’s efforts on

mitigating immigration was through Executive Order No. 13768 (2017), Enhancing

Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. Signed into effect on January 25, 2017,

this order highlighted Trump’s campaign rhetoric that immigrants who enter the United

States illegally or those who stay past the expiration of their visas “present a significant

threat to national security and public safety” (Exec. Order No. 13,768, 2017). U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (2022) reported for fiscal year 2016 just more than

16,000 criminal convictions by noncitizens. The number of arrests for the same period

was 12,842, considering some arrestees had multiple convictions (see Table 1).

Table 1

Total Criminal Convictions by Type of Noncitizens in FY 2016

Type

Number of Convictions

Assault, battery, domestic violence

1,007

Burglary, robbery, larceny, theft, fraud

825

Driving under the influence

2,458

Homicide, manslaughter

Illegal drug possession, trafficking

1,797

Illegal entry, re-entry

7,060

Illegal weapons possession, transport, trafficking

237

Sexual offenders

155

Other

2,544

Total

16,091

For FY 2016, Department of Homeland Security (2017) reported a total 1.47%

overstay rate of nonimmigrant visitors admitted to the United States via air and sea points

of entry. This equated to 739,478 individuals who overstayed their authorized time

allowed in the United States upon admission without evidence of an extension. The

earliest report DHS provided on its website is for FY 2015. The overstay rate for this

period was 1.17%, or 527,127 individuals (DHS, 2016).

In comparison to the number of noncitizens who committed crimes in the scope of

the reasoning behind Executive Order 13768, statistical evidence was not conducive. The

actuality of immigrants influencing local crime rates was less than native U.S. citizens

(Nowrasteh, 2018). Light et al. (2020) compared felony crime rates between U.S.

citizens, undocumented immigrants, and legal immigrants in the historically conservative

border state of Texas and found that U.S. citizens between 2012 and 2018 had higher

crime rates in violent crime, property crime, drug violations, assault, robbery, burglary,

theft, and arson. Homicide, traffic violations, and sexual assault were the two crimes

investigated that showed higher rates for legal immigrants. Statistics for undocumented

immigrants were substantially lower than either U.S.-born citizens or legal immigrants

for any of these felonies. Once in effect, Executive Order 13768 (2017) removed federal

grants from jurisdictions that were considered “sanctuary,” terminated the Obama

administration’s Priority Enforcement Program, and required “detainers” on unauthorized

immigrants in the custody of those jurisdictions.

Upon the execution of this order, legal challenges were issued against the orders’

legality. The city and county of San Francisco and other jurisdictions in California sued

President Trump and several members of his administration. The plaintiffs argued

Executive Order 13768 violated 8. U.S.C. 1373 and the Fifth and the Tenth Amendments

of the U.S. Constitution. The case stated separation of powers was being violated since

the executive branch now placed conditions on federal funds, which is a power granted

by Congress. The executive order was found to be unconstitutional on these grounds by

District Court Judge William H. Orrick (University of Michigan Law School, 2018). The

executive order was further revoked by President Biden with the signing of Executive

Order 13993 (2021), Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities,

under the proclamation that the government must “adhere to due process of law as we

safeguard the dignity and well-being of all families and communities” (Section 1).

Executive Order No. 13769

While on the campaign trail, Trump raised support from potential voters by

promoting fear and anger. When terrorist attacks occurred in 2015 in San Bernardino,

California and Paris, France, Trump used the religion of the participating terrorists to

gain support and strengthen his base with those who shared a similar perception. He used

these incidents to justify his rhetoric against Muslims and had a 7-point increase in the

polls (Ball, 2016). One week after the presidential inauguration, Trump signed Executive

Order 13769 (2017), Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

States, commonly known as the Muslim ban. Effective immediately, Muslim visitors and

refugees from seven prominently Muslim countries were banned from entry into the

United States, including those already in transit. Utilizing executive power “to create

immigration policies under a national security justification that is never tested, or, even

worse, found to be flawed, the human consequences are grave” (Wadhia, 2018, p. 1477).

Not only was chaos seen at airports on the days following the signing of the order with

students and residents being barred from entry (Michallon, 2017), but it was also reported

the health of Muslims in the United States was affected by an increase of hostility toward

the religious group around this timeframe (Samuels et al., 2020).

Of the seven countries where immigrants or refugees were prohibited from entry

(Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen), none of the terrorist attacks

conducted by Muslims in the United States were from those countries; almost half of the

terrorists were either U.S. citizens or legal residents (Bergen et al., n.d., as cited in Pierce

& Meissner, 2017). Most infamous, 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, two

were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt

(9/11 Memorial & Museum, n.d.). Further, data between 1975 and 2015 suggested that

the likelihood of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack is one in 3.64 billion

(Nowrasteh, 2016, as cited in Pierce & Meissner, 2017). From these reports, it can be

understood that the executive order placed burdens on those who had no reason to be

denied entry, as argued in the many legal cases that were brought against Trump and his

administration. One such case argued the ban was unconstitutional in that it violated the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and that it violated the Immigration and

Nationality Act regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on race, sex,

nationality, place of birth, or place of residence (Wadhia, 2018). In State of Hawai’i and

Ismail Elshikh v. Donald Trump, et al. (2017), the plaintiffs argued that the executive

order stigmatized immigrants and refugees as well as Muslim citizens of the United

States. Their argument was defended with verbatim quotes from Trump and members of

his administration leading up to the ban, where they indiscriminately pointed toward

Muslims for driving terrorism, yet in one case, Christians from Syria should be helped.

Per these statements, the order was not executed based on national security rationale but

rather anti-Muslim motivation.

The initial executive order was replaced with Executive Order 13780 (2017),

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. Major

differences from the first order removed an indefinite ban on Syrians, allowed for

entrants from Iraq, and had a 10-day waiting period before the order would be in effect

(Wadhia, 2018). A third revision was issued through Presidential Proclamation 9645

(2017). Entry from Iran, Libya, Chad, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, and

Yemen were now indefinitely blocked due to perceived threats. Both revisions of the ban

faced similar legal challenges on behalf of mosques, family members, states, refugee

resettlement organizations, and others (Wadhia, 2018). In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the

U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban and its reiterations with Chief Justice Roberts

delivering the opinion that the order did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act

and the president had the authority to issue the proclamation. Further, the Supreme Court

did not find that ban was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment. President Biden ultimately revoked the Muslim ban with Presidential

Proclamation 10141 (2021) on the day of his inauguration, stating “the United States was

built on a foundation of religious freedom and tolerance” (p. 7005), and Trump’s denial

of allowing individuals from primarily Muslim countries and African countries was a

“stain on our national conscience and…inconsistent with our long history of welcoming

people of all faiths and no faith at all” (p. 7005).

Impact on Non-White and/or Non-Christian Immigrants

Federal policies have lasting and detrimental impacts on non-Whites and/or non-

Christians attempting to efficiently immigrate to the United States or once living in the

country. These issues do not stop with immigrants themselves, but issues transpire across

other social aspects. Alwan et al. (2021) discussed barriers healthcare providers

recognized when caring for undocumented immigrants due to public policy issues and the

xenophobic and anti-immigration rhetoric that occurred during the Trump administration.

Spearheaded by Stephen Miller to significantly change immigration policy (Hesson,

2019), in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security granted the U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS) authority to deny certain immigrants the ability to achieve

permanent residency for several reasons, including if noncitizens used a public benefit for

more than 12 months during a 36-month period (DHS, 2019). It was estimated that this

new rule would have the potential to eliminate legal immigration by 50 percent (Trotta &

Rosenberg, 2019). Less than two months into the Biden administration, the “public

charge” rule was terminated (USCIS, 2021a). Daughter of immigrants from Mexico and

Iraq (USCIS, 2021b), USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou (2021), reiterated this message in a

letter she wrote to interagency partners. She explained that they should “work together to

reduce the fear and chilling effects of the 2019 Public Charge Final Rule” (p. 1) and that

the agency would follow the 1999 interim field guidance.

Ghandakly and Fabi (2021) further addressed the impact of U.S. immigration

policy during the Trump administration. According to the authors, medical staff raised

ethical concerns about facilities holding migrants who were detained at the U.S.-Mexico

border. Individuals were receiving possibly unnecessary hysterectomies while under U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. This was on account that women were

not fully explained the reasoning behind the procedures and unable to give informed

consent. Ultimately, the consequences of these actions left women unable to ever bear

children. Ghandakly and Fabi (2021) attested that these were failures of the Trump

administration to address ethical immigration policy, in addition to policies that oversee

ICE detention facilities.

Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 2 introduced the topic of the rise in far-right extremist influence on

policymakers’ ideology that affects immigration law. Through an extensive literature

review, it was found that a buildup of White nationalist sentiment and condonation of

political behavior and speech assisted in supporting specific anti-immigration laws,

including executive orders signed by President Trump weeks after being elected to office.

Through the tenets of policy feedback theory, it was demonstrated how these actions

continued to support Trump’s effort in supporting discriminatory policies and the actions

of his successor to revoke those policies. Several critical policies that were passed since

the founding of the country were analyzed to assess how the policies between 2017 and

2021 were not novel, yet they still displayed specific wording that can be considered

extreme and far-right through influencing factors. Through this historical context, modern

far-right extremism and specific actors were explored in what the ideology stands for

today and the methods of spreading support across the country and into the works of

policymakers. Subsequently, the importance of applying these policies to the daily lives

of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants showcased how individuals and groups

were discriminated against prior to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, causing

a feedback effect. Chapter 3 describes the research design and rationale in addition to the

research tradition and rationale. It further explores the methodology that was used to

collect and analyze data.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how far-right extremists

influence American policymakers in supporting the perspective that immigrants are

replacing White Americans to change the cultural landscape of the country and how that

affects non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. Chapter 3 provides information on

my role as a researcher in conjunction with the components of qualitative reasoning and

analysis. Chapter 3 additionally provides the methodology used to examine far-right

extremist ideology on federal immigration policies between 2017 and 2021 through data

collection and its procedures, data analysis, issues of trustworthiness, and the ethical

issues discovered during this study.

Research Design and Rationale

Research designs are plans that help researchers collect data and analyze that data

(O’Sullivan et al., 2017.) They include the study’s methodology, purpose, a plan that

answers the research questions, which aligns to the study’s purpose. Specifically in this

study, the purpose was to understand how far-right extremists influence American

policymakers in supporting the perspective that immigrants are replacing White

Americans and how that affects non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. The first

research question looks at the tenets of contemporary far-right extremism and how those

concepts or specific language would somehow drive federal anti-immigration policies:

For federal legislation passed in support of anti-immigration policies between 2017 and

2021, what far-right extremist ideology is found in the wording of the policies? The

second question takes these findings a step further by conceptualizing how these federal

policies impacted non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants in the United States: For

non-White and/or non-Christian minority immigrants living in the United States, what

themes emerge in their reports of the problems experienced with the application of anti-

immigration policies on their day-to-day lives? The central phenomenon of this study was

thus exploring the nexus between extreme, far-right ideologies and federal anti-

immigration policies that were signed by President Trump after being elected to office

and how such policies shape the day-to-day experiences of non-White and/or non-

Christian immigrants living in the United States.

To understand the phenomenon, qualitative research was implemented as the best

approach. A qualitative study begins when a scholar has an idea or perspectives that they

want to explore with which they have little or no knowledge about (Kyngäs, 2020). The

research tradition used in this study was a document analysis approach. By using content

analysis, a researcher can apply qualitative methods on written material to provide

answers to research questions (Kyngas, 2020). Content analysis is an important research

technique by studying communication (talk, text, etc.) to understand a social phenomenon

(Krippendorff, 2018). In this study, far-right extremists, Trump’s executive orders, and

their impact on non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants were explored through the

study of a variety of documents and first-hand reports. The current study included a

historical document analysis that encompasses a specific situation (federal anti-

immigration policy) bounded by time (2017–2021) and context (influence from far-right

extremist ideology; Billups, 2021).

Data were collected through secondary sources. In relation to the first research

question, a historical analysis of American anti-immigration policies was captured by

reading such policies and their surrounding historical context to understand the progress

or lack thereof of in immigration policy making. Policies were reviewed from the

founding of the country up to the timeline mentioned in the research question. This may

provide insight into knowing that although anti-immigration policies are not unheard of,

changes were possibly made over the course of American history to allow for less

discriminatory practices to occur. Then, the focus of contemporary far-right extremism

that took place was studied to understand the current culture in America and how that

may have influenced policy makers in creating new and restrictive immigration laws

between 2017 and 2021.

The timing of these policies was current and allowed for an abundant amount of

immigrant reports available through public sources, including media and social media

accounts. Data from several immigrant groups were collected in relation to which federal

policy most impacted their experience in terms of having personal difficulty in

immigrating to the United States or how their lives were affected negatively within the

country. Although data saturation can take place from any number of samples (Mason,

2010), this study focused on the feasibility that far-right extremism possibly influenced

federal immigration policies between 2017 and 2021 and those policies may have had a

negative impact on non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. Therefore, this design is

best suited to answer the research questions.

Central Phenomenon of the Study

The central phenomenon of this study is exploring the nexus between extreme,

far-right ideologies and federal anti-immigration policies that were signed by President

Trump after being elected to office and how such policies shape the day-to-day

experiences of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants living in the United States.

Exploring the historical context of American immigration policy, specifically executive

orders 13767 (2017), 13768 (2017), and 13769 (2017), political rhetoric surrounding their

drafting, individual and group influence, and the impact they made on non-White and/or

non-Christian immigrants may contribute to understanding the many concepts and how

they are linked.

Research Tradition and Rationale

The research tradition used in this study is a document analysis approach. A

qualitative study begins when a scholar has an idea that they want to explore human

experiences or perspectives with which they have little or no knowledge about the

phenomenon at hand (Kyngäs, 2020). By using content analysis, a researcher can apply

qualitative methods on written material to provide answers to an array of research

questions (Kyngas, 2020). Krippendorff (2018) discussed that content analysis is an

important research technique by studying communication (talk, text, etc.) to understand a

social phenomenon within the social world. In this specific study, far-right extremists,

Trump’s executive orders, and their impact on non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants will be explored through the study of a variety of documents and first-hand

reports. The epistemological view regards knowledge, how it is generated, and the

relationship that is composed between a researcher and the phenomenon of interest

(Burkholder & Burbank, 2020, as cited in Burkholder et al., 2020). These concepts create

a subjective role due to the researcher being the main instrument in qualitative research.

To this extent, it is understood that the basis of relativism, knowledge, and interpretive

analysis are subjective to me and can be construed differently by a separate researcher.

However, the historical context of this study and its foundational interpretation can be

utilized to address the identified phenomenon and give public policy decision makers

information to formulate and/or change policies where far-right extremists’ influence has

impacted American immigration policy.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, researcher reflexivity is essential in assessing identity,

positionality, biases, assumptions, values, and subjectivities (Ravitch & Carl, 2019).

Throughout this study, these elements were continuously considered to remain neutral as

an observer of the historical context surrounding immigration policy and its effect on

non-White and non-Christian immigrants. It is understood that far-right ideology

identifies these groups, as demonstrated in the actions and rhetoric of its followers. To

minimize bias, I focused on immigration concerns that target non-Whites and non-

Christians, including Muslims. Additionally, being White, non-Hispanic, and a fourth-

generation American, I have not experienced immigration issues like those affected by

the policies discussed in this research.

Methodology

Content analysis is an empirically grounded method that interprets

communication in the social world through systemic reading of text, images, and

symbolic matter (Krippendorff, 2019). By conducting content analysis, I was able to

explore how executive orders enacted during the Trump administration may have

contributed negatively, positively, or indifferent toward immigrants living in the United

States or those wishing to immigrate into the country through text, imagery, and

symbolism. The two research questions that lay the foundation for the study are used to

explore this phenomenon and align by first attempting to understand the influence that

occurred to draft and pass the orders and then the consequences non-White and/or non-

Christians endured. By having a clear methodological path, other researchers will be able

to replicate the study if so desired (Yin, 2017).

A methodological process was designed to assist in completing the lifecycle of

this study; although, several pieces will iterative based upon new information that was

found to be essential. O’Sullivan et al. (2017) suggested a systematic approach when

collecting data and conducting analysis. Due to this being a qualitative study using

content analysis with secondary data, not all steps were utilized, such as having a strategy

to contact subjects. This step was altered to research reports of subjects who were

negatively impacted by anti-immigration executive orders during the Trump

administration. Other traditional mechanisms were applied as suggested, particularly if

they mirror the outline of Walden University’s dissertation template and other

requirements set forth by the institution while aligning to the components of this study.

Document Selection Logic

Content analysis can occur through purposive selection, observing behaviors and

viewpoints, and identification of patterns of experiences (Patton, 2015). Units of analysis

can be focused on different demographic groups depending on their relationship of

projects or programs (Patton, 2015), in this specific case, anti-immigration policies. The

second research question was chosen to understand how policies possibly affected non-

White and/or non-Christian immigrants that were influenced by far-right ideology and

placed into law through swift and immediate executive orders. Records from participants

were purposefully selected based on several criteria, including stipulations that they were

living in the United States or attempting to immigrate prior to or during the Trump

administration, they were non-White and/or non-Christian, and their reports were

publicly available either through testimonials or within peer-reviewed articles. Patton

(2015) noted units of analysis when conducting a case study can be documents, such as

social media postings, media items, crime reports, and emails. Although there is not a

specific number of required samples needed in a qualitative study, the true number of

collected samples in this sample was necessary to demonstrate (Saunders, et al., 2017) the

nexus between extreme, far-right ideologies and federal anti-immigration policies enacted

between 2017 and 2021 and how those policies shaped the day-to-day experiences of

non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants living in the United States. To assist in

reaching data and meaning saturation, a starting point was approximately 10–15 publicly

available immigrant and refugee reports. Although not all immigrants were asked the

same questions nor within the same platform (e.g., social media, mainstream media,

academic articles, etc.), similar themes were discovered due to the available information

provided by participants through these public reports.

Instrumentation

Qualitative research allows for several types of instrumentation to occur, such as

interviews, observations, and documentation (Burkholder et al, 2020). It is also

understood that researchers are considered an instrument in data collection (Creswell &

Poth, 2018) and a central consideration in qualitative research (Ravitch & Carl, 2020).

Other data collection instruments were used were documents and records of publicly

available reports and stories related to the impact Trump’s executive orders had on non-

White and/or non-Christian immigrants.

In utilizing content analysis in this study, it was imperative that instrument

development took place. According to Berelson (1971, as cited in Wilkinson &

Birmingham, 2003), three factors need to be present to conduct content analysis in a

qualitative study: Aan interest in precise results, possibility of collected data being

biased, and data collected to be statistically related to numerical data. This method

implies that themes and issues are able to be analyzed through a holistic approach, which

results in a thorough and accurate analysis of a phenomenon (Wilkinson & Birmingham,

2003). Krippendorff (2019) explained that three kinds of evidence validations in content

analysis may occur: evidence that justifies treatment of the text, evidence that justifies the

explanation from observations, and evidence that justifies the results. To establish content

validity, several forms should take place from a qualitative approach, including face

validity (obviously true and sensible), social validity (acknowledging important social

issues), and sampling validity (sample represents the population; Krippendorff, 2019).

All data were obtained through secondary sources and included data collected in

peer-reviewed articles or personal responses to executive orders in the mainstream media

and social media platforms. Units of analysis included immigrants from the countries

who were banned from immigrating to the United States, per Executive Order 13769

(2017). Reports from Mexican immigrants were reviewed in response to Executive Order

13768 (2017). Additionally, any non-White and/or non-Christian immigrant who relayed

any personal experience suffered through other executive orders between 2017 and 2021

was researched and identified as informative to answer the research questions and better

understand the phenomenon of how far-right extremists’ ideology may have influenced

laws during this period to stop non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants from entering

the United States.

Data Analysis Plan

The data collected through public sources was managed using NVivo qualitative

data management software. Documents, records, and reports were organized based on the

wording found in right-wing propaganda and categorized for thematic analysis by using

contextually based concept coding. Saldaña (2021) explained that concept coding can be

conducted by taking a word or phrase that symbolizes a broader meaning. This method

was justifiably most appropriate due to ideology being a theme of analysis. To keep an

open mind on what may have been found in the collected data, inductive coding was

used, as recommended by Saldaña (2021). As data were reviewed, codes were created

through In Vivo coding by highlighting key terms on what is observed and then

categorized based on policy feedback theory’s four streams of inquiry to conduct

analysis. This took place through implementing a codebook to ensure the research

questions, theoretical framework, and other elements of the study remained at the

forefront of what codes emerged rather than diverging into an irrelevant direction.

Accomplishing this was done by capturing federal laws enacted between 2017

and 2021, in addition to social media posts, speeches, websites, manifestos, and books.

Concept coding was additionally helpful when analyzing the second research question.

Recent non-White and non-Christian immigrant and refugee reports was collected to

understand how these laws impacted their experiences attempting to come to America or

once in the country. Information was reviewed to explore how extreme, far-right ideology

may have led to certain federal laws being passed, which curtailed non-White and/or non-

Christian immigration. Observations of the themes that emerged in issues concerning

immigration problems due to the application of these policies was further explored

through thematic analysis regarding the impact immigrants encountered. Saldaña (2021)

suggests this analysis technique can be used to study longer phrases rather than shorter

codes, which aligns to the concept coding method.

Coding Example

Table 2 is an example of how coding took place while reviewing documents.

Collected documents were reviewed for statements of interest. Primary codes were

reviewed for topics relating to far-right ideology regarding the first research question and

its impact on non-White/non-Christian immigrants for the second research question.

Secondary codes were created summarizing the primary codes. Next, the statement was

labeled with the pertinent research question. If appropriate, one or more of the three

executive orders were added for reference. Lastly, one or more of the four streams of

inquiry under policy feedback theory were added as a category if applicable. In this

process, In Vivo coding was practiced while reading through the collected data to

discover new codes and apply them accordingly.

Table 2

Theory: Policy Feedback

Statement

Primary Code

Secondary

Code

Executive

Order

Stream of

Analysis

I feared for my

safety,

security, and

opportunity in

a country

where White

nationalists

feel

emboldened.

Fear for my

safety,

security, and

opportunity

fear

13769

Power of

groups

Many of these

aliens are

criminals…

Aliens are

criminals

degrading

immigrants

13768

Political

agenda

Issues of Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness, or validity, in qualitative research is required throughout the

design phase to ensure studies are acceptable (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). To achieve

trustworthiness, four goals or concepts should be obtained, which include dependability,

credibility, transferability, and confirmability. Burkholder et al. (2019) offer several

suggestions to ensure trustworthiness is obtained, including audits, triangulation, and

reflexivity. For this study, triangulation was used as a primary method to gather and

utilize different forms of data to determine how my interpretation, as the researcher, was

formulated according to the data.

Dependability

Yin (2017) explained that dependability is a method that is used to minimize

errors and biases. In content analysis, dependability is used to assess the quality of the

process on how data is collected, analyzed, and theory generation in addition to stability

of that data over time and in different conditions (Kyngäs et al., 2020). Researchers

should implement this concept and include dependability to ensure the research is reliable

(Burkholder et al., 2019; Yin, 2017). Triangulation was used throughout each process to

ensure data collection, analysis, and reporting were consistent in this study.

Dependability was obtained by describing why certain documents or records were

included or excluded and other decisions made during the search process (Langtree et al.,

2019). Utilizing specific executive orders and their direct impact on the lives of non-

White and/or non-Christian immigrants provided a transparent method to ensure

dependability was reached. Further, reports of non-Whites and/or non-Christians that may

be impacted by other circumstances were intentionally excluded, as they offered no

association to the aforementioned executive orders.

Credibility

In qualitative research, credibility should be obtained to demonstrate that the

findings of the study are aligned with the data that has been presented by the researcher

(Burkholder et al., 2019). Through credibility, others can determine that the researcher’s

findings are a truthful representation and that there is plausibility that the researcher’s

interpretation and analysis are parallel to the data (Langtree et al., 2019). This was

accomplished through triangulation of collecting and analyzing non-White and/or non-

Christian immigrant reports that specifically recalled an impact related to the three

executive orders signed by President Trump and capturing them in NVivo. Additionally,

subjectivity and reflexivity were utilized as internal methods to enhance the study’s

credibility.

Transferability

Transferability provides an opportunity to demonstrate a meaning beyond the data

collected in a single study (Burkholder et al., 2019). For instance, in reviewing reports of

non-White and non-Christian immigrants regarding the three executive orders described,

it was assumed that other public reports existed as well as instances of similar

experiences not reported. Therefore, this study can be transferable to broad contexts

while maintaining the richness of this study’s specific context (Ravitch & Carl, 2019).

Confirmability

In qualitative research, it is deemed appropriate that the researcher will be used as

an instrument in the study. This brings forms of biases into the research and requires

acknowledgment and still yet methods to confirm the findings (Ravitch & Carl, 2019).

Ravitch and Carl (2019) provide several suggestions for researchers to keep the process

in mind of collecting data and coming to conclusions or interpretations. In this study,

collecting the executive orders that were influenced by far-right extremists and then

compiling reports of those directly impacted by said executive orders assisted in

demonstrating that neutrality is intended and transpired. The interpretation of far-right

extremists was subjective and explored through definitions, examples, and my

perspective.

Ethical Procedures

No participants were utilized in the data collection process of this study. By

collecting data from public secondary sources, recruitment or access to human

participants was avoided. Due to collected information being public, it was not necessary

to consider material or affiliation to individuals as confidential. Data available on the

internet, in books, in other research projects, or in other areas freely accessible means by

the public has implied permission for use and analysis (Tripathy, 2013). It was not

anticipated that identifying information would be necessary to answer either research

question. Although the data collected for this research derived from public sources, it was

still essential that the data was handled with care; even though, confidentiality was not a

concern. To accomplish secure storage, collected data were saved on my personal

computer that requires a unique password or Touch ID to gain access and that are only

possessed by myself. Additionally, no conflicts of interest occurred, considering I did not

participate in the drafting or signing of the mentioned executive orders, nor did I collect

data from personally known sources who may have influenced these laws or may have

been impacted by them.

Once this proposal received approval from my chair and second committee

member, the University Research Review (URR) commenced. At that time, I completed

Walden University’s (n.d.) Research Ethics Approval Form A and included any required

documentation for Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethical review and approval. The

process of gaining approval from the Institutional Review Board to collect data was

obtained on August 10, 2022 with approval number 08-10-22-1043534. Once approved, I

had the authorization to begin data collection.

Summary

This chapter explored the methodology being proposed to conduct this study. As

an instrument in this study, I explained how I was subjective in certain aspects of the

process as well as objective in others. The methodology used was described to understand

how far-right extremist ideology influenced federal immigration policies and their impact

through the collection of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrant reports.

Trustworthiness and ethical issues were explained to provide transparency and document

the methods used to minimize errors or biases. Chapter 4 will explore the data collection,

data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, and results in detail.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this study was to understand how far-right extremists influence

American policymakers by supporting the perspective that immigrants are replacing

White Americans and how that affects non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants.

During then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to “Make America Great

Again,” an increase of extreme, anti-immigrant rhetoric was condoned and supported by

himself and his electorate, which included building a border wall between the U.S.-

Mexico border and stopping Muslims from immigrating or even traveling to the United

States. Ultimately, three executive orders were signed by Trump and enacted days within

the new president taking office, which took immediate actions to stop immigration

specifically targeted at non-White and non-Christian individuals and groups. The

research questions used to explore this phenomenon provided restrictive guidance to

ensure this study was focused and aligned. The first research question asked about far-

right extremist ideology being present in the wording of federal legislation passed in

support of anti-immigration policies between 2017 and 2021. The second research

question asked about possible emerging themes in the reports of non-White and non-

Christian minority immigrants regarding the problems they experienced with the

application of anti-immigration policies on their day-to-day lives. Research was

conducted by implementing document analysis. Qualitative research methods were used

to explore the perspectives and opinions of those who either directed or supported anti-

immigration policies or those who were affected by the enactment of such policies.

Chapter 4 contains the findings from the research that was conducted in this

study. Chapter 4 describes the setting, demographics, data collection and analysis,

evidence of trustworthiness, and the results of the study within the parameters of far-right

ideology and the impact federal anti-immigration policies had on non-White and non-

Christian immigrants. The chapter ends with a summary.

Setting

This study used secondary data to focus on federal laws passed between 2017 and

2021 in the United States. Data derived from sources such as right-wing propaganda on

social media posts, speeches, websites, manifestos, and books. Data were also collected

from non-White and/or non-Christian minority immigrants who reported being impacted

by executive orders signed by Trump. This data was collected to understand how anti-

immigration policies affected their lives either attempting to immigrate to the United

States or once in the country.

Demographics

Utilizing two research questions provided the unique ability to observe

perspectives from two groups with widely differing circumstances, perspectives, and

opinions. The first research question asked what far-right extremist ideology may be

found in the wording of anti-immigration policies between 2017 and 2021. Therefore, it

was imperative to collect and analyze the views and actions of extreme, far-right

ideologists in relation to anti-immigration policies around this time period and in relation

to particular anti-immigration executive orders. The second explored non-White and non-

Christian immigrants and their reported experiences of how anti-immigration policies

between 2017 and 2021 were problematic from their perspective. Within the first

research question, I explored text and images posted by far-right extremists surrounding

topics of immigration, religion, and race. The timeframes researched were prior to

Trump’s presidential campaign, through his administration, and the years of the Biden

administration. Specifically, relevant years were around 2015 through 2022. This

provided a scope of being able to understand the ideology of extremists over many years

while observing how their opinions were either consistent or changed depending upon

current events, particularly the signing Executive Order 13767 (2017), Executive Order

13768 (2017), and Executive Order 13769 (2017).

Policy feedback theory’s power of groups and political agendas and problem

definition were highlighted streams of inquiry for the first research question. The second

research question explored the demographics of non-White and non-Christian immigrants

wishing to enter the United States as well as their experiences if they were living in the

country. Reports of Mexican, Latin American, and Muslim immigrants were researched

and utilized. Reports were also obtained from Jews to explore their perspective on far-

right, extremist actions on Jews within the United States and non-Jewish immigrants

either in the United States or wishing to live in the country.

Data Collection

As it was essential to ensure secondary data were collected through ethical

guidelines necessary in academic research, I wanted to ensure I collected data that were

easily accessible to any individual, such as through Twitter’s public forum, Reddit, far-

right extremist websites available without requiring a subscription, or other publicly

available repositories. To collect relevant data, it was first necessary to thoroughly

examine the three executive orders signed by President Trump that focused on limiting or

hindering immigration: Executive Order 13767 (2017), Executive Order 13768 (2017),

and Executive Order 13169 (2017). This was achieved by uploading the documents from

the United States’ National Archives Federal Register and examining the text in relation

to immigration, policy feedback theory, and human factors.

Considering this study entailed collecting online secondary data, the vastness of

far-right extremist ideology and immigrant reports was immense. Maintaining the scope

of the research questions and how they connected to the theoretical framework was

important in addition to keeping with the 2017–2021 timeframe. Accomplishing this was

done by researching far-right extremist websites (see Appendix B) for content relating to

immigration and opinions against non-White and non-Christian minority groups,

specifically if those opinions somehow related to perceived policy failures prior to 2017

and policy initiatives after 2017. Second, first-hand immigrant reports were collected

from online sources as well, such as through mass media outlets and social media

websites open to the public. There were not any variations from the data collection plan

presented in Chapter 3, nor were any unusual circumstances encountered.

Data Analysis

Secondary data were gathered from a variety of online resources (see Appendix

B), including social media sites, mass media publications, and online forums. NVivo 12

(Mac) was the data management software that was utilized to collect and assist with

coding and analyzing content. It was critical that data were relevant in relation to the two

research questions used in this study. Once found, data were uploaded into NVivo and

either coded immediately or over time, depending on groups of data and size.

Four codes were created as top-level codes based on policy feedback theory’s four

streams of inquiry: meaning of citizenship, form of governance, power of groups, and

political agendas and problem definition. The two research questions were also included

as top-level codes to differentiate between far-right extremism and an immigrant

experience. In Vivo coding was completed while reading through the collected data to

discover new codes. Inductive coding was then accomplished by highlighting text,

images, or transcribed video and creating codes based on the data. Lastly, I returned to

the areas that were coded and additionally coded them with one or more of the four

streams of inquiry based on policy feedback theory as well as one or more applicable

executive order. Not all areas were coded with a stream of inquiry if one could not be

applied, and such limitations were noted. In addition to far-right extremist rhetoric and

immigration reports, each of the three executive orders (Executive Order 13767 [2017]),

Executive Order 13768 [2017], and Executive Order 13169 [2017]) were coded in the

same processes described above.

After coding approximately 10 documents ranging from single-sentence

statements (e.g., Twitter posts) to content covering several pages (e.g., blog posts,

comments, and policies), it became apparent that several themes were taking place based

on recurring concepts in the language, audio, or imagery of the data. A total of 22 items

were collected and analyzed through coding; however, several other sources were either

collected in NVivo or referred to for context, such as extremist websites or news

segments. Through the inductive coding exercise, a descriptive codebook was created

with top-level and child codes (a more specific code related to a top-level code). As

additional reports were gathered and entered into NVivo, the documents were coded by

either using existing codes or creating new codes.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

This section explains the trustworthiness that was used throughout the design

phase to ensure this study is acceptable (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Four concepts were

maintained to achieve trustworthiness, which include dependability, credibility,

transferability, and confirmability. This study used triangulation (i.e., application of

multiple data sources and/or positional perspectives; Ravitch & Carl, 2019) as a primary

method to gather data and interpret the data from the point of view as a researcher by

using multiple secondary sources, including interviews, observations, and documentation.

Dependability

Dependability is a method that researchers incorporate into their studies to

minimize errors and biases (Yin, 2017). This is accomplished in content analysis by

assessing the quality of how data is collected and analyzed and how theories are

generated from that information (Kyngäs et al., 2020). Triangulation was implemented to

ensure dependability. This included purposeful sampling of a multitude of data sources

from or about different people (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Considering each of the executive

orders targeted a certain group, it was intended to search for content related to individuals

or groups that may have impacted the policies or were somehow affected by their

passing. For example, the essence of Executive Order 13767 (2017) was border security;

however, specific passages in the text targeted only the southern border of the United

States. This allowed the reasoning to search for content related to far-right extremism

against Mexicans to answer Research Question 1. Further, multiple immigrant reports

from a variety of Mexicans either wishing to enter the United States around the time of

the passing of this executive order or how they were treated once in the country were

collected to answer Research Question 2. Triangulation provided a method to collect

multiple perspectives to answer both research questions.

Credibility

Credibility in qualitative studies occurs when findings are believable with the data

that is presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, as cited in Burkholder et al., 2020). To

accomplish this, one or more strategies can be utilized, which would be considered most

appropriate to the particular study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, as cited in Burkholder et al.,

2020). I ensured credibility was maintained in this study by implementing triangulation,

subjectivity, and reflexivity in how data was collected and analyzed. Any interpretation

that arose was done so through transparent alignment of the data to demonstrate to others

that plausibility is likely (Langtree et al., 2019). Reports were only collected if they were

specific and consistent to anti-immigration policy between 2017 and 2021 and the impact

they made on the experiences of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants.

Transferability

Transferability demonstrates how qualitative studies can maintain their specificity

while also being applicable to broader contexts (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Transferability in

this study was achieved by reviewing selected posted material by far-right extremists to

understand their ideology on the topic of immigration; communication and far-right

association of official and unofficial, top-level Trump campaign and administration

advisors or appointees, and reports of non-White and non-Christian immigrants who were

impacted by federal policies between 2017 and 2021. This allowed for contextual

understanding of the data and ensured authenticity. It was determined that through the

data analysis techniques described in this study and the detailed descriptions of the

setting and demographics of those utilized to answer each research question, the findings

can be considered transferable to future studies.

Confirmability

Qualitative research immerses researchers into their studies by acknowledging

that they are an instrument; however, the methods used must have verifiable procedures,

analyses, and conclusions while requiring other researchers to arrive to the same

conclusions with the same data (Burkholder et al., 2020). Confirmability was

accomplished in this study by strictly focusing on the content provided by far-right

extremists and non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants and their relationship with

federal policies between 2017 and 2021. Although I gave interpretation to the context

behind certain posts or reports through coding and analysis, I attempted to stay neutral by

observing each individual or group’s point of view and perspective on the topic. Closely

adhering to the wording of the research questions provided a guide to ensure I did not

stray from the goal of attempting to answer those questions by placing my own bias on

what was being stated by an individual or group.

Results

Results of this study fulfilled the study’s purpose and answered each research

question. Data were collected and analyzed systemically by each research question and

by ensuring policy feedback theory’s four streams of inquiry were addressed during the

analysis phase. The literature review provided a thorough historical background on

federal immigration policies within the United States since the founding of the country. A

contemporary examination of immigration policies was explored by focusing on

American political and cultural rhetoric around 2017 and 2021. Three federal policies

enacted by the Trump administration in 2017 were analyzed based on Trump’s campaign

promises. Analyzing far-right extremist ideology leading up to the signing of these

policies was necessary to answer the first research question to determine what far-right

extremist ideology could be found in the wording of those policies. Once far-right

extremist ideology specific to immigration and immigrants was sufficiently understood

and the three executive orders were reviewed and analyzed, the day-to-day experiences of

non-White and non-Christian were explored to see what themes emerged in their reports

of the problems experienced from these policies.

The results in this study were accomplished by obtaining Executive Order 13767

(2017), Executive Order 13768 (2017), and Executive Order 13769 (2017) from the

United States’ National Archives Federal Register. Far-right extremist ideology was

discovered by researching online sources, including social media posts, speeches,

websites, and books. This included specific individuals who were in close contact with

President Trump, either in an official or unofficial capacity, as well as those who posted

extremist content regarding immigration or immigrants from either Hispanic or

predominantly Muslim countries or regarding Jews. Research also included extremist

points of view on sanctuary cities to apply that perspective surrounding Executive Order

13768 (2017). Reports of non-White and non-Christian immigrants were obtained

through similar means. In one instance, dialogue between far-right extremists and

immigrants was discovered and observed to see how both views clashed and yet had a

substantial impact on emotional discourse.

Collected data were uploaded into NVivo to manage, categorize, and code the

data. This provided a disciplined method to review each case and code according to the

data collection and analysis plan. Codes were created using the In Vivo method of

highlighting key terms and then categorizing them based on one or more of policy

feedback theory’s four streams of inquiry. A codebook was created in NVivo to ensure

the research questions and theoretical framework were in focus and maintained a front

position in the research. This also ensured codes stayed on course and did not become

immaterial. Concept coding was helpful in analyzing the “bigger picture” (Saldaña, 2021,

p. 361), particularly with how immigrants experienced problems from the enactment of

these federal policies either in their attempt to come to the United States or after they

arrived in the country. Themes were then observed once coding was complete for each

set of data.

This research resulted in collecting direct quotes from political actors, far-right

extremists, non-White immigrants, non-Christian immigrants, and American Jews. It was

imperative that direct quotes were not reported in this study to maintain anonymity and

protect each person’s identity. Since these reports were discovered from online sources, it

would be simple for anyone to search the internet for those direct quotes to discover the

name or other personal identifiable information of the individuals.

Anti-Immigration Wording in Policies

Prior to collecting the data on far-right extremists and non-White and non-

Christian immigrants, it was imperative that the three executive orders were thoroughly

read, understood, and analyzed from the perspective of having anti-immigration

undertones and with keeping policy feedback theory at the forefront. This was

accomplished by uploading the documents into NVivo and coding them by exploring

terms or concepts on or in respect to immigration. Certain top-level terms were created

through concept coding, which allowed for themes to emerge with each executive order

being independent of one another. Subsequently, it was explored how discovered themes

created a larger understanding of the dependence these executive orders had on one

another as well as the social construct in America during this period. Below are tables

specific to each executive order discussed in this study and the themes that emerged

independently of one another.

Table 3

Themes Found in Executive Order 13767

Theme

Occurrences

Security

Policy Initiatives

Border

Going elsewhere

Political agendas and problem definition (policy feedback

theory)

Policy failures

Total

Table 4

Themes Found in Executive Order 13768

Theme

Occurrences

Form of governance (policy feedback theory)

Determined

Security

Punish/Retaliate

Political agendas and problem definition (policy feedback

theory)

Safety

Sanctuary

Deported

Power of groups (policy feedback theory)

Policy failures

Total

Table 5

Themes Found in Executive Order 13769

Theme

Occurrences

Form of governance (policy feedback theory)

Determined

Islamophobia

Security

Political agendas and problem definition (policy feedback

theory)

Policy failure

Policy initiatives

Safety

Misinformation

Punish/retaliate

Terrorism

Total

From the perspective of the U.S. government, the themes that emerged from all

three policies highlighted the importance of securing the country and protecting its

citizens. To ensure security and safety, several extreme measures were required,

according to the executive orders. However, it was apparent, particularly through the

literature review, that such measures were irrelevant to protecting America and

Americans but rather to create policy initiatives based on grouping all immigrants from

particular areas into categories that include terrorists and other criminals. For example,

Executive Order 13769 (2017) states the Secretary of Homeland Security can “prioritize

refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided

that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of

nationality” (section 5). Considering a minority religion in a Muslim-majority country

could be Christianity directly identifies how Christians were not perceived as a threat, but

Muslims were. Therefore, a Muslim would be labeled a terrorist per the content stated

within this order, regardless of the immigrant’s request to come to the United States.

Ultimately, a Christian seeking refugee status would get priority over a Muslim seeking

refugee status.

Far-Right Extremism Themes

Based on the themes that emerged from analyzing the content in the executive

orders, I began to collect data relevant to immigration that consisted of extreme, far-right

ideologies. Many reports were specific toward disliking immigrants; however, some gave

a broad explanation on why immigrants should not be allowed in the United States.

Specific themes that emerged were that immigrants are a threat toward the status quo in

America, America should not be responsible for helping immigrants because it is not the

country’s responsibility, and President Trump, at the time, is going to help Americans

financially by sending illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. It was noted that

far-right extremists perceived immigrants as a cause for their own problems and that

assimilating non-Whites or non-Christians (particularly Jews but more so Muslims) will

not harbor a peaceful or just society. Many ideas were mixed in various discussions of

immigration, including far-left activism, democratic leaders, and the mainstream media.

Themes from Non-White and/or Non-Christian Immigrants

A variety of reports from non-Whites and non-Christian immigrants were

collected, coded, and analyzed. Most of these reports came from Muslims and Hispanic

groups as a result of Executive Order 13767 (2017) and Executive Order 13769 (2017)

specifically targeting these two groups. The one stream of inquiry in policy feedback

theory that was repeatedly coded was meaning of citizenship. Although each person

desperately wanted to come to the United States to be productive and live a peaceful life,

they were in some form having their meaning of citizenship dictated by the Trump

administration’s policy initiatives. Additionally, the theme of emotion (in one form or

another) was discovered within many of the reports. The top-level code of “Emotion”

included several child codes, including anger, anxiety, cynicism, degrading, emotional

pain, feeling of the unknown, and feeling stuck or helpless. Immigrants reported not

being happy, crying, worrying about being deported, living through a difficult time, and

losing hope due to the impact these anti-immigration policies had on their day-to-day

lives.

Themes Related to Antisemitism

As discussed in the literature review, antisemitism is a recurring theme within far-

right extremism. President Trump played both roles as president—one who championed

Israel and had majority support of Israelis (Margalit, 2021) while also condoning known

antisemitic groups, such as the Proud Boys (Frenkel & Karni, 2021). It was additionally

reported that attacks against Jews increased significantly within a short period while he

was in office (Little, 2017). The great replacement theory is specifically important when

understanding the hatred far-right extremists have against Jews. Making statements at

rallies that “Jews will not replace us” (Winston, 2021) signifies many of the themes

found within the analysis of collected documents, such as separation (keeping other races

separate from the White race), disenfranchisement, blaming others for individual or

group problems, and strong emotion (anger). In this analysis, it appeared to be the

collection of federal policies and rhetoric of anti-immigration and racial division that

possibly contributed to antisemitic attacks and the following lack of regard.

Reports from Jews indicated an understanding of how anti-immigration policies

can have persecutory and marginalized implications. Several reports illustrated sympathy

toward Muslims when Executive Order 13767 (2017) and Executive Order 13769 (2017)

were enacted as a reflection from similar experiences of discrimination based on faith and

ethnicity. Several individuals referred to experiences lived by Jews during the Holocaust

and suffered from the practices of Nazis. This included family separation and the

rejection of being taken in by other countries as refugees. Multiple streams of inquiry

were noted; however, power of groups was portrayed by several Jews in terms that they

were against the anti-immigration policies enforced during the Trump administration and

how Jews would work together to support immigrants and refugees who were being

marginalized by these federal policies and the ideology of far-right extremism.

Similar Themes Found with Far-Right Extremists and Immigrants

As data was collected from far-right extremists and immigrants, it became

apparent that similar codes could be utilized for either group. Differences in these codes

depended upon the perspective of either group. Some similar themes that emerged

included determination, emotion, and separation. It came across that both groups were

extremely determined in their desires and motivations. Far-right extremists were

determined in keeping immigrants out of America, particularly illegal immigrants or

deporting those who were already here regardless of their circumstances. Immigrants

were determined in coming to America to start their lives anew or be joined with family

members already in the country. Far-right extremist ideology was relayed with intense

emotion in explanations of having anti-immigration policies, whereas immigrants

demonstrated intense emotion in what impact those policies had on them and their

families. The theme of separation was used to explore family separation as well as

keeping groups separated in a drive to protect native-born Americans as well as blame

others for personal problems or problems in society.

Summary

This chapter explored the data collection techniques that were used, data analysis

that was conducted, evidence of trustworthiness, and results found from the research in

detail. By conducting a content analysis through collected documents, the results

indicated that far-right extremists have a threatening perception of immigrants. In the

time period studied, far-right ideology suggested that Americans should not be burdened

with helping immigrants and that immigration can be a cause for personal or societal

problems. The federal policies studied indicated that security and safety of America and

its citizens was a high priority. To ensure those were upheld, drastic policy initiatives

needed to be enacted, which targeted certain non-threatening groups and individuals

based on religion or country of origin. Lastly, reports from non-White and non-Christian

immigrants indicated a desperation to come to the United States for a better life or to seek

opportunity for their family units. Much like far-right extremists, emotion was a high

indicator of what was driving them to speak out. Far-right extremists showed signs of

anger and disklike, whereas immigrants showed signs of despair, helplessness, and

uncertainty. Chapter 5 will provide an interpretation of the research findings, limitation of

the findings, recommendations for future research, and implications this study has for

policy decision makers on federal immigration policy.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how far-right extremists

influence American policymakers in supporting the perspective that immigrants are

replacing White Americans and how that affects non-White and/or non-Christian

immigrants. Three main areas were studied to accomplish this. First, federal anti-

immigration policies, particularly Executive Order 13767 (2017), Executive Order 13768

(2017), and Executive Order 13169 (2017) were studied to determine if far-right

extremist ideology was found in the wording of those policies. Next, far-right extremist

ideology was collected from public resources, including social media posts, speeches,

websites, and books that strictly pertained to immigration or immigrants around the time

of the Trump administration. Lastly, reports from non-White and non-Christian

immigrants were collected to explore the problems they experienced with the application

of these federal policies on their day-to-day lives.

Utilizing policy feedback theory’s four streams of inquiry provided a roadmap on

how immigration policies created politics and how policies influenced attitudes and

behaviors in society (Pierson, 1993). The policies and rhetoric that were studied indicated

perceived policy failures from previous administrations and that the Trump

administration would fix those wrongs through enacting several executive orders that

halted or discouraged immigration of certain groups of individuals.

Chapter 5 provides a concise summary of key findings of this qualitative study by

reviewing the purpose and nature of the study and the reasoning on why it was

conducted. It will interpret and analyze the findings through the context of the theoretical

framework. Limitations of the study will be discussed that would have improved the

study if not experienced. Recommendations for future research will be explored that

could augment this study further. Potential impacts for positive social change will also be

discussed so that policy makers can make constructive decisions in their lawmaking

practices.

Interpretation of the Findings

Policies influence the political agenda while providing social benefits to groups of

citizens (Mettler & SoRelle, 2018, as cited in Weible & Sabatier, 2018). However, it is

argued that progressive immigration policies play a separate role in that they may give

opportunities or protections to those from other countries. That is, restrictive immigration

policies have the intent of creating a resentful or angry climate by determining who is

eligible to become citizens and excluding others based on some criteria (Champlin &

Knoedler, 2020).

As I coded the reports of immigrants who were impacted by these policies in

conjunction with the theoretical framework, I noticed a missing component of social

humility. Policies clearly have a direct impact on groups and individuals. Many reports

that were reviewed in this study lacked the connection to policy feedback theory based

upon how the four streams of inquiry are structured. Through the coding exercise, it was

discovered that the human element was missing from the streams of inquiry and how

policies, in this case, did not recognize that based upon their generalization of particular

groups. The Trump administration’s executive orders on immigration lacked humility in

recognizing, acknowledging, and understanding that individuals would be detrimentally

impacted based on the extreme measures to keep certain immigrants out of the country. It

is therefore interpreted that other policies may play the same role. If social humility was

part of policy feedback’s framework, a better and more appropriate analysis could be

determined for policy makers to assist in keeping policies’ true impact in mind when

making life-altering decisions for others.

In this study, it was found that far-right extremists wished to inhibit the ability of

certain groups, whereas the immigrants in this study were hoping to better their lives, and

in many times, contribute to the country’s societal fabric, such as for work or academics.

Therefore, it was discovered that in addition to meaning of citizenship, form of

governance, power of groups, and political agenda and problem definition, a fifth stream

of inquiry of policy feedback theory would be to provide an augmented approach to

understanding how policies come into being. Although closely related to meaning of

citizenship, there is an element that goes beyond an individual’s meaning of how they see

their citizenship, particularly with those who are wishing to gain citizenship of another

country. It is therefore, at least in the terms of immigration, suggested that that fifth

stream of inquiry recognized in terms of the humanitarian element. Such a stream of

inquiry can observe access to resources, ability to navigate political and legal arenas, and

how those with knowledge and power (e.g., policymakers and advocates) can work with

citizens and noncitizens to advance their well-being and how those components

ultimately become policies that shape politics.

Limitations of the Study

Several media outlets included screenshots of posts in their reports or wrote in

detail about what individuals wrote, reposted, or had interactions with one another. These

archival posts were helpful in seeing some first-hand content and replies but could not be

obtained to conduct further collection and analysis on what others who replied to or

reposted content from an originator.

Another limitation of this study was the incompleteness of policy feedback

theory’s streams of inquiry in relation to this study. Although many of the coded material

could align to one or more stream of inquiry, many were left without a coded reference to

the theoretical framework. Although this is acknowledged as a limitation, it was

discovered that an additional stream could be created to expand upon the reach of policy

feedback theory and how it relates to policies and politics in society and government. The

addition of an emerging stream of social humility may significantly augment the other

streams to have a more complete theoretical framework. This would allow other

researchers the ability to more completely associate policy statements and the actions of

individuals and/or groups to how policies fully impact citizens and noncitizens within a

given country. Bring forward the fact that policies have profound impacts on the

livelihoods of people, it would be essential for policy decision makers to understand the

human element and have humbleness and constraint to drafting and enacting such

policies.

Recommendations

Several recommendations for future studies were noted while conducting research

and analyzing the collected data. It was discovered during the data collection phase that

Twitter has a method to conduct academic research for free by applying for special use

for researchers, including doctoral candidates working on their dissertations. It is first

recommended that future research collects data from deleted posts or accounts by

obtaining this information through resources, such as the Twitter API for Academic

Research service. This would allow researchers to have posts and interactions from far-

right extremists whose accounts were banned or who deleted their own posts in retrospect

of their past actions.

Most significant would be having accessible availability to Donald Trump’s

account, @realdonaldtrump, during the data collection and analysis phase of this study.

Not having content from this account since it was permanently suspended by Twitter

after the January 6, 2021 insurrection on the Capitol Building (Twitter Inc., 2021) and

then reinstated by Twitter’s new owner on November 18, 2022 was a major limitation,

but it does not necessarily have to be in others. It would also be beneficial if the account’s

advanced search function works as intended. It was also discovered that some far-right

extremists have websites which require subscriptions to access their recorded shows.

Subscribing or becoming members to these services may result in discovering

information not found on free, public forums.

Future research could also examine far-left extremists and how their ideology

influences particular policies, including immigration policies and actions at the federal

level. Another possible study could examine anti-immigration policies at lower

governmental levels, such as in one or more states. Several governors have led extreme

measures to curtail immigration, so focusing on their policies could assist in applying

policy feedback theory either within individual states or what impact it has on other state

policies. Finally, if policy feedback theory is further developed by scholars, additional

streams of inquiry could be applied to data and how it is coded and ultimately analyzed in

other states.

Implications

This study has implications for positive social change in several areas, including

family, society, and within the government. Many immigrant families, as found from the

research, were directly impacted by the federal policies set forth during the Trump

administration. Individuals who were separated from their family members felt the

emotional pain caused by these actions. Future policies that promote the same or similar

actions by the federal government will likely have similar negative outcomes on the

familial unit. It is also seen how societal issues were critical to the support received by

President Trump and his administration as well as the division that took place among

other Americans and minority groups. Future promotion of anti-immigrant rhetoric and

policies will likely see similar implications, particularly at the timeliness of these

executive orders and if Trump wins the 2024 presidential election or any other future

election. Bringing these or similar policies back has already been foreshadowed in his

speech to reelection with statements such as:

Our southern border has been erased and our country is being invaded by millions

and millions of unknown people, many of whom are entering for a very bad and

sinister reason. And you know what that reason is. We will be paying a big price

for this invasion into our country for years to come. (“Anderson Cooper 360

Degrees,” 2022, 21:10)

Lastly, social change can be directly influenced by the government in many areas.

The promotion of immigration reform for all, rather than a selected few, can be seen as a

positive implication in helping those who seek better opportunities in the United States as

well as the positive impact immigrants can make within American society. The

government, its leaders, and policy decision makers also have the ability to condemn

White nationalist and other far-right extremist groups rather than condone their behaviors

in speech or action, particularly when placed within policies and championed by such

groups.

The application of policy feedback theory followed the implications as described

by Schattschneider (1935), Pierson (1993), and Mettler and SoRelle (2018, as cited in

Weible & Sabatier, 2018). It is therefore concluded that this theory will continue to have

the same implications regarding policies and politics. By adding a fifth stream of inquiry

of social humility, other implications on positive social change can be observed,

collected, and analyzed accordingly.

Conclusion

Immigration policy is not new to the United States. The literature review

demonstrated how some of the earliest federal policies were written to exclude or limit

certain immigrant groups based on their country of origin. This continued until the mid-

20th century with the Immigration and Nationality Act (1965) moving away from

discriminatory practices. Anti-immigration rhetoric intensified with then-candidate

Trump’s campaign for president. Within a few weeks of becoming president, Trump

signed three executive orders that directly halted or hindered immigration of certain

groups based on religion or country of origin. Far-right extremist ideology came to light

in support of such policies and ultimately drove their enactment. Immigrants targeted in

these federal policies were directly impacted and experienced great distress in society and

with the government. Many of the threats perceived by the government of safety and

security were not backed by research then nor now.

My findings contribute to the academic research of far-right extremist ideology

influence on American immigration policy and the application of anti-immigration

policies on the day-to-day lives of non-White and/or non-Christian immigrants. The

findings of this study showcase how extremist policies have immense impact on groups

and individuals who are groundlessly targeted by such policies. These results indicate

how policy makers should consider the humanitarian side when changes are made to

federal immigration policies and how those changes impact the individuals and groups

addressed within those policies.

85 
 
References 
9/11 Memorial & Museum. (n.d.). 9/11 FAQs. https://www.911memorial.org/911-faqs  
Acosta, J., Bash, D., & Kopan, T. (2016, November 14). Trump picks Priebus as White 
House chief of staff, Bannon as top adviser. CNN. 
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-reince-priebus-white-
house-chief-of-staff/index.html 
Ahmed, A., & Senzai, F. (2004). The USA Patriot Act: Impact on the Arab and Muslim 
American community. Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. 
https://www.ispu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-usa-patriot-act_farid-
senzai.pdf?x46312  
Ali, S. S. (2021). Far-right extremism in Europe. Journal of European Studies, 37(1), 
119–139. https://asce-uok.edu.pk/journal/index.php/JES/article/view/171  
Ali, W., Clifton, E., Duss, M., Fang, L., Keyes, S., & Shakir, F. (2011). Fear inc.: The 
roots of the Islamophobia network in America. American Progress. 
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf?_ga=2.180163308.9795129
45.1638672234-1672728333.1638672234  
Alwan, R. M., Kaki, D. A., & Hsia, R. Y. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to accessing 
health services for people without documentation status in an anti-immigrant era: 
A socioecological model. Health Equity, 5(1), 448–456. 
https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2020.0138  
Anderson Cooper 360 degrees. (2022, November 15). CNN. 

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2022-11-15/segment/02

Asfari, A., Hirschbein, R., & Larkin, G. R. (2019). Toward an operational definition of

Islamophobia. Walden Faculty and Staff Publications, 2(1), 1–8.

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/facpubs/127

Bai, H. (2020). Whites’ racial identity centrality and social dominance orientation are

interactively associated with far-right extremism. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 59, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12350

Ball, M. (2016, September 6). Donald Trump and the politics of fear. The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-

politics-of-fear/498116/

Béland, D., & Schlager, E. (2019). Varieties of policy feedback research: Looking

backward, moving forward. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 184–205.

https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12340

Billups, F. D. (2021). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and

applications. SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781071878699

Boteach, S. [@RabbiShmuley]. (2017, May 2). With @SteveBannon in the White House

on #israelindependenceday. Steve is a great, stalwart friend of the Jewish State

[Image attached] Tweet. Twitter.

https://twitter.com/RabbiShmuley/status/859514352755453954?s=20

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.).

(2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-

practitioner. Sage.

87 
 
Butt, K. M., & Khalid, M. (2008). Rise of the far-right groups in Trump’s America. 
Journal of Political Studies, 25(2), 105–120. 
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/rise-far-right-groups-trumps-
america/docview/2220696207/se-2  
Chaplin, D. P., & Knoedler, J. T. (2020) Dualistic discourse and immigration policy. 
Journal of Economic Issues, 54(1), 38–53. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2020.1720562  
Cohn, S. (2015). ‘No hyphenated Americans, please’: Making sociological sense of 
popular restrictions. Critical Sociology, 41(6), 967–974. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514553680  
Chin, G. J., & Ormonde, J. (2018). The war against Chinese restaurants. Duke Law 
Journal, 67(4), 681–741. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol67/iss4/1  
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Pub. L. No. 47-126, 22 Stat. 5. (1882). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/22/STATUTE-22-
Pg58c.pdf  
Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, Pub. L. 78-199, 57 Stat. 600. (1943). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/57/STATUTE-57-
Pg600.pdf  
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing 
among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 86 Fed. Reg. 53736 (November 29, 2021) (to be 
codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 106, 236, & 274). 

88 
 
Department of Homeland Security. (2019). Inadmissibility on public charge grounds. 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-
17142/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds  
Department of Homeland Security. (2017). Fiscal year 2016 entry/exit overstay report. 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Entry%20and%20Exit%20Ov
erstay%20Report%2C%20Fiscal%20Year%202016.pdf  
Department of Homeland Security. (2016). Entry/exit overstay report: Fiscal year 2015. 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry
%20and%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf  
Department of Justice. (2021). 2020 hate crime statistics. 
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics  
Department of State. (n.d.). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The 
McCarran-Walter Act). Office of the Historian. 
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act  
Displaced Persons Act of 1948, Pub. L. 80-774, 62 Stat. 1009. (1948).  
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-
services/service/ll/usrep/usrep060/usrep060393a/usrep060393a.pdf  
Emergency Quota Act of 1921, Pub. L. 67-5, 42 Stat. 5. (1921). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/42/STATUTE-42-Pg5.pdf  
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–173 (2002). 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ173/pdf/PLAW-
107publ173.pdf  

89 
 
Exec. Order No. 9066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1407. (February 19, 1942). 
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-9066  
Exec. Order No. 13767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793. (January 30, 2017). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02095/border-
security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements   
Exec. Order No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799. (January 25, 2017). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02102/enhancing-
public-safety-in-the-interior-of-the-united-states  
Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977. (January 27, 2017). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-
the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states  
Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209. (March 9, 2017). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/09/2017-04837/protecting-
the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states  
Exec. Order. No. 13993, 86 Fed. Reg. 7051. (January 25, 2021). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01768/revision-of-
civil-immigration-enforcement-policies-and-priorities  
Exec. Order No. 14010, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267. (February 5, 2021). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/05/2021-02561/creating-a-
comprehensive-regional-framework-to-address-the-causes-of-migration-to-
manage-migration  
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). State of the domestic White nationalist extremist 

90 
 
movement in the United States. https://archive.org/details/foia_FBI_Monograph-
State_of_Domestic_White_Nationalist_Extremist_Movement_in_the_U.S./mode/
1up?view=theater  
Federal Register. (n.d.). Executive orders. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-
documents/executive-orders  
Federal Student Aid. (2021). Financial aid and undocumented students. 
https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/financial-aid-and-undocumented-
students.pdf  
FitzGerald, D. S., & Cook-Martín, D.  (2014). Culling the masses: The democratic 
origins of racist immigration policy in the Americas. Harvard University Press. 
Forscher, P. S., & Kteily, N. S. (2020). A psychological profile of the alt-right. 
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 90–116. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619868208 
Frenkel, S., & Karni, A. (2021, January 20). Proud Boys celebrate Trump’s ‘stand by’ 
remark about them at the debate. The New York Times. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/trump-proud-boys-biden.html  
Full text: Donald Trump announces a presidential bid. (2015, June 16). The Washington 
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-
text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/  
Garcia-Navarro, L. (2021, September 26). What is White replacement theory? Explaining 
the White supremacist rhetoric. [Radio broadcast]. National Public Radio. 
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A677554200/OVIC?u=minn4020&sid=bookmark-

91 
 
OVIC&xid=b1b21825    
Ghandakly, E. C. (2021). Sterilization in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 
(ICE’s) detention: Ethical failures and systemic injustice. American Journal of 
Public Health, 111(5), 832–834. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306186  
Guerrero, J. (2020). Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White 
nationalist agenda. William Morrow. 
Hales, A. H., & Williams, K. D. (2018). Marginalized individuals and extremism: The 
role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 
75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12257 
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning 
saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 
27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 
Hesson, T. (2019, August 2). Emails show Stephen Miller pressed hard to limit green 
cards. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/02/stephen-miller-green-
card-immigration-1630406  
Higgins, S. M. (2018). Orientalist soundscapes, barred zones, and Irving Berlin’s China. 
Chinese America: History & Perspectives, 37–48. 
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581024573/EAIM?u=minn4020&sid=ebsco&xid
=e74fb74f  
Holan, A. D. (2019, April 26). In context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both 
sides’ remarks (transcript). Politifact. 
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-

92 
 
both-sides-remarks/  
Hoff, A. R. (2021). The passing of the great race; or the racial basis of European history 
(1916), by Madison Grant. The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. 
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/passing-great-race-or-racial-basis-european-history-
1916-madison-grant  
Hollinger, D. (2005). Governmental constraints on academic freedom: Summary of 
discussion. St. Louis Journalism Review, 36(282). 
Huang, M. (2021). Interview: Margaret Huang on confronting the history of anti-Asian 
hate and White supremacy in the United States and abroad. Georgetown Journal 
of International Affairs, 22(2), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1353/gia.2021.0024  
Immigration Act of 1924, Pub. L. 68-139, 43 Stat. 153 (1924). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/43/STATUTE-43-
Pg153a.pdf  
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965). 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-
Pg911.pdf  
Jaddou, U. M. (2021, November 16). Public charge interagency letter. 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-
docs/USCIS_Public_Charge_Interagency_Letter_11.16.21.pdf  
Johnson, K. R. (2019). Trump’s Latinx repatriation. UCLA Law Review,66(6), 1444–
1504. https://www.uclalawreview.org/trumps-latinx-repatriation/  
Kang, Y., & Yang, K. C. C. (2021). Communicating racism and xenophobia in the era of 

Donald Trump: A computational framing analysis of the US-Mexico cross-border

wall discourses. Howard Journal of Communications, 1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2021.1996491

Karolin, A. J., & Aden, R. C. (2021). Identifying home: A narrative of Japanese

American internment. Communication Quarterly, 69(2), 192–213.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2021.1913427

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.).

Sage.

Kyngäs, H. (2020). Qualitative research and content analysis. In Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen,

K., & Kääriäinen, M. (Eds.), The application of content analysis in nursing

science research (pp. 3–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6

Kyngäs, H., Kääriäinen, M., & Elo, S. (2020). The trustworthiness of content analysis. In

Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., & Kääriäinen, M. (Eds.), The application of content

analysis in nursing science research (pp. 41–48). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6

Langtree, T., Birks, M., & Biedermann, N. (2019). Separating “fact” from fiction:

Strategies to improve rigour in historical research. Forum: Qualitative Social

Research, 20(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.2.3196

Light, M. T., He, J., & Robey, J. P. (2020). Comparing crime rates between

undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in

Texas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States, 117(51), 32340. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

94 
 
Little, K. (2017, February 17). Donald Trump: I am the least anti-Semitic person that 
‘you’ve ever seen in your entire life.’ CNBC. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/donald-trump-i-am-the-least-anti-semitic-
racist-person-that-youve-ever-seen.html  
Ludden, J. (2006, May 9). 1965 immigration law changed face of America. National 
Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395  
Margalit, R. (2021, January 12). Trump’s legacy in Israel. The New Yorker. 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/donald-trumps-legacy-in-israel  
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative 
interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social 
Research, 11(3). https://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027  
Mayorkas, A. (2012, August 15). Deferred action for childhood arrivals: Who can be 
considered? The White House. 
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/08/15/deferred-action-
childhood-arrivals-who-can-be-considered  
Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic 
citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 
2(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704000623  
McCauley, T. (2021). Race war or culture war: The diversity in right-wing extremism. 
Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 14(2), 192–208. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2021.1917771  

95 
 
McEldowney, M. [@mykalmphoto]. (2017, August 12). David Duke now here in 
#charlottesville for #altright #unitetheright rally @USATODAY @RbtKing 
[Video] [Twitter]. Twitter. 
https://twitter.com/mykalmphoto/status/896387613157974018?s=20&t=0RiFJu9
QidgrOTdgXEq1rg  
Michallon, C. (28, January 2017). Trump’s immigration ban derailed: Federal court 
grants emergency stay temporarily HALTING deportation of visa holders 
detained at US airports after nationwide protests. Daily Mail. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4167812/Donald-Trump-DEFENDS-
immigration-ban-order.html  
Mowatt, R. A. (2019). A people’s history of leisure studies: Where the White nationalists 
are. Leisure Studies, 40(1), 13–30. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1624809  
Naturalization Act of 1790, Pub. L. No. 1-3, 1 Stat. 103 (1790). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/1/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf   
Nowrasteh, A. (2018, February 26). Criminal immigrants in Texas: Illegal immigration 
conviction and arrest rates for homicide, sex crimes, larceny, and other crimes. 
CATO Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-
brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant#notes  
O’Brien, B. G. (2018, November 27). The 1929 law that turned undocumented entry into 
a crime. Zócalo Public Square. 
https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2018/11/27/1929-law-turned-undocumented-

96 
 
entry-crime/ideas/essay/  
O’Sullivan, E., Rassel, G., Berner, M., & Taliaferro, J. D. (Eds.). (2017). Research 
methods for public administrators (6th ed.). Taylor & Francis.   
Obaidi, M., Kunst, J., Ozer, S., & Kimel, S. Y. (2021). The ‘great replacement’ 
conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of Whites can evoke violent extremism 
and Islamophobia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1–21. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211028293  
Official Data. (n.d.). $1,000 in 1924 is worth $16,4441.40 today. Retrieved March 3, 
2022, from https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1924?amount=1000  
Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922) 
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/178/  
Page Act of 1875, Pub. L. No. 43-141, 18 Stat. 477 (1875). 
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/18/STATUTE-18-
Pg477.pdf  
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). SAGE 
Publications.  
Pelosi, N. (2019, April 8). Pelosi statement on resignation of Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen 
[Press release]. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4719  
People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399 (1854). 
https://cite.case.law/pdf/4216544/People%20v.%20Hall,%204%20Cal.%20399%
20(1854).pdf  
Pew Research Center. (2018, August 9). An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on 

validated voters. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-

examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

Pierce, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Trump executive order on refugees and travel ban: A

brief review. Migration Policy Institute.

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Trump-EO-Refugees-TravelBan-

FINAL.pdf

Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change.

World Politics, 45(4), 595–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950710

Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017).

Proclamation No. 10141, 86 Fed. Reg. 7005 (2021).

Ramakrishna, K. (2021). The White supremacist penetration of western security forces:

The wider implications. New England Journal of Public Policy, 33(2), 1–14.

https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol33/iss2/4

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the Conceptual,

theoretical, and methodological. SAGE Publications.

Richard, L. (2022, November 2019). Donald Trump reacts after Elon Musk reinstates his

Twitter account, ending lifetime ban. Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald-trump-reacts-after-elon-musk-

reinstates-his-twitter-account-ending-lifetime-ban

Rosenberg, J., Robles, S., Agustín-Méndez, M. O., Cathell, E., & Casasola, A. (2020).

What happens to a dream deferred? Identity formation and DACA. Hispanic

Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 42(3), 275–299.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986320936370

Rowland-Shea, J., & Doshi, S. (2021, February 1). The extremist campaign to blame

immigrants for U.S. environmental problems. American Progress.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2021/02/01/495228/extre

mist-campaign-blame-immigrants-u-s-environmental-problems/

Sagás, E., & Román, E. (2019). Build the wall and wreck the system: Immigration policy

in the Trump administration. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy,

25/26(2/1), 21–56.

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=facult

y_publications

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE

Publications.

Samuels, E. A., Orr, L., White, E. B., Saadi, A., Padela, A. I., Westerhaus, M., Bhatt, A.

D., Agrawal, P., Wang, D., & Gonsalves, G. (2020). The impact of the “Muslim

ban” executive order on healthcare utilization in Minneapolis-St. Paul,

Minnesota. [Unpublished manuscript]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3671423

Sarna, J. D., & Eleff, Z. (2017). The immigration clause that transformed Orthodox

Judaism in the United States. American Jewish History, 101(30), 357–376.

https://doi.org/10.1353/ajh.2017.0049

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingston, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H.,

& Jinks, C. (2017). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its

conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907.

Far-Right Extremist Influence on American Immigration Policy.pdf

Students also viewed