This paper aims to explore attitudes toward immigration among two non-White groups, Asian Americans and Black Americans. For more than a decade, individuals from Asia have comprised the majority of immigrants entering the United States each year. Today, the majority of the Asian American U.S. population remains foreign-born. Yet using data collected from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey and the 2016 National Asian American Survey—a time period marked by high levels of saliency with regard to immigration issues—we find that Black Americans, the majority of whom are U.S.-born, exhibit even more progressive attitudes towards immigration, both legal and undocumented, than mostly foreign-born Asian Americans. Our research challenges economic and material theories related to immigration attitudes and suggests that political connections to and “linked fate” with other minorities better explain why Black Americans exhibit more progressive attitudes toward immigration than Asian Americans.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative aims to understand the mechanisms influencing psychopathology through a dimensional approach. Limited research thus far has considered potential racial/ethnic differences in RDoC constructs that are influenced by developmental and contextual processes. A growing body of research has demonstrated that racial trauma is a pervasive chronic stressor that impacts the health of Black Americans across the life course. In this review article, we examine the ways that an RDOC framework could allow us to better understand the biological embedding of racial trauma among Black Americans. We also specifically examine the Negative Valence System domain of RDoC to explore how racial trauma is informed by and can help expand our understanding of this domain. We end the review by providing some additional research considerations and future research directives in the area of racial trauma that build on the RDoC initiative.

The connection between social identity and attitudes toward the criminal justice system (CJS) is an area of interest among criminologists and legitimacy scholars. Previous work has proposed a social identity theory of legitimation, positing that individuals categorize CJS officials as either in-group (i.e. legitimate authority) or out-group (i.e. illegitimate enforcer). Subsequently, how individuals perceive their CJS – including the sincerity of its commitment to the rule of law – is tied to this relationship. Those viewing the government as an out-group oppressor are less likely to accept its legitimacy. This article explores this thesis. From the perspective of system justification theory, how the CJS is categorized should depend on how strongly an individual identifies as belonging to a group disadvantaged by the CJS. System justification theorists hypothesize that system justification (including acceptance of system legitimacy) is more likely when members of disadvantaged groups believe that group interests are less important. Alternative models that explain attitudes toward the system by using social identity theory suggest the opposite: Those who identify more strongly with disadvantaged groups and hold their interests to be more important nonetheless justify oppositional systems and view them legitimately. The present study uses a sample of Black Americans (a disadvantaged group in the American CJS) to determine whether group identification predicts system justification.