REVISITING MCCLAIN AND STEWART’S FRAMEWORK ON INTERMINORITY RELATIONS

McClain and Stewart’s (Reference McClain and Stewart1995) framework on interminority relations provides an analytical tool for understanding how racial and ethnic groups interact within the American political system. They argued that competition for scarce resources often pits minoritized groups against one another (McClain and Stewart Reference McClain and Stewart1995, 61–63). Yet, McClain and Stewart also emphasized that shared experiences of racial subordination and systemic exclusion can generate opportunities for solidarity across groups (McClain and Stewart Reference McClain and Stewart1995, 90–92). These tendencies toward conflict and cooperation were central to their research.

McClain and Carew (Reference McClain and Carew2017) expanded this framework by noting that as minoritized populations grow and pursue greater political representation, tensions can intensify when groups perceive themselves as competing for limited access to institutional spaces. Historically, many Black Americans gained political influence through bureaucratic positions and elected offices at the local, state, and federal levels (McClain and Carew Reference McClain and Carew2017, 156). Post-1965 migration diversified local electorates, expanding Latino and Asian representation and sharpening perceived competition for influence and roles in government (McClain and Carew Reference McClain and Carew2017, 156–79). As racially diverse groups gained political visibility, competition for representation intensified (Moslimani and Passel Reference Moslimani and Passel2024).

One dimension that McClain and Stewart’s (Reference McClain and Stewart1995) framework did not address is intragroup differences. Contemporary migration patterns have introduced new internal cleavages, particularly within Black communities, in which native-born Black Americans and Black migrants navigate overlapping yet distinct political identities and claims to representation. These dynamics complicate the binary logic of interminority competition by revealing how shared racial categorization does not translate automatically into shared political interests and resource alignment. This study broadens the scope of race, ethnicity, and politics to account for how migration reconfigures political solidarities within and between minoritized communities.

GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSFORMATION

Globalization intensified worldwide social, economic, and political interconnections and transformed local conditions through global flows of people, capital, and ideas after 1965 (Held et al. Reference Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton1999; Sassen Reference Sassen1998). It fundamentally reshaped US policies and opened pathways for migrants into labor markets, education, and politics (Lee and Zhou Reference Lee and Zhou2015; McClain and Carew Reference McClain and Carew2017; Waters and Jiménez Reference Waters and Jiménez2005). Although these demographic shifts diversified America, they also generated new forms of perceived competition for political and economic space (McClain and Carew Reference McClain and Carew2017, 268). For instance, programs that originally were designed to address the structural disadvantages faced by the descendants of enslaved Black Americans were increasingly used by immigrants, whose family histories of racialization and inequality differ from those rooted in US slavery (Greer Reference Greer2013; Hamilton Reference Hamilton2020). Similar tensions surface in labor markets, where Black Americans and immigrant groups often compete for both high-skilled and low-wage jobs within shrinking public and private sectors. Understanding these developments requires an update of McClain and Stewart’s (Reference McClain and Stewart1995) framework to account for inequalities produced by global migration.

The global transformation diversified the US population and Black America’s composition. McClain and Stewart’s (Reference McClain and Stewart1995) framework presumed a relatively coherent Black political community; however, post-1965 migration introduced new within-group differentiation (i.e., national origin, immigrant status, and political socialization) that the framework does not fully theorize. Throughout the past four decades, increasing numbers of migrants from Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America have entered the United States through family-reunification programs, refugee resettlement, and skilled-labor pathways (Hamilton Reference Hamilton2020; Tamir and Anderson Reference Tamir and Anderson2022). These developments introduced new cultural, linguistic, and national variations within Black populations, reshaping how “Blackness” is defined, experienced, and politically expressed. New lines of tensions developed as native-born Black Americans and Black immigrants negotiated their respective position within hierarchies of race, citizenship, and access to resources.

INTRAGROUP COMPETITION BETWEEN BLACK AMERICANS AND BLACK IMMIGRANTS

Intra-Black group dynamics are changing in America. Approximately one in 10 Black people in the United States is now foreign-born (Tamir and Anderson Reference Tamir and Anderson2022). These demographic shifts complicate older notions of Black identity. Cohen’s (Reference Cohen1999) concept of “secondary marginalization” showed how some members of minoritized groups experience layered exclusion within their communities, and Greer’s (Reference Greer2013) research demonstrated how Black immigrants and native-born Black Americans differently perceive belonging. Black immigrants are more likely than Black Americans to view immigrants as strengthening American culture and the economy (Greene Reference Greene2021), revealing how globalization shapes perspectives within the Black population.

Furthermore, rising rates of interracial relationships have increased the multiracial population by more than 10% since 2010 (Ventura and Flores Reference Ventura and Flores2025). Many mixed individuals of African or Black descent, including former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris, identify as Black Americans; however, this identification sometimes is met with skepticism within the Black community (Ma, Hohl, and Kantner Reference Ma, Hohl and Kantner2021). As the multiracial and the Black immigrant populations continue to grow, these demographic shifts complicate traditional notions of Black identity. These patterns are particularly visible in cities such as Chicago—which now is home to expanding Black immigrants and non-Black immigrants—making it an ideal lens through which to explore how these national trends unfold at the urban level.

NEOLIBERAL URBAN GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURAL COMPETITION

Since the 1990s, neoliberal urban governance has intensified competition among minoritized groups by transforming cities into markets rather than public commons. Policies emphasizing privatization, austerity, and public–private partnerships have eroded public investment in housing, education, and welfare (Fields and Raymond Reference Fields and Raymond2021; Harvey Reference Harvey2005). As a result, Black communities and newly arrived migrants must navigate shrinking public resources. Competition for affordable housing, neighborhood schools, and city services becomes sharper, particularly when politicians frame these struggles as zero-sum contests (Gil, Martínez, and Sequera Reference Gil, Martínez and Sequera2023; Kafka and Wilson Reference Kafka and Wilson2023). Neoliberal governance externalizes state responsibility, thereby reframing structural shortfalls as intergroup rivalry.

This shift resulted in the shrinking availability of affordable housing, quality education, and basic social supports (Kafka and Wilson Reference Kafka and Wilson2023). For example, the privatization of Chicago’s public housing under the “Plan for Transformation” displaced thousands of predominantly Black residents and intensified competition for affordable housing with immigrant communities (Betancur Reference Betancur2011). Similarly, the expansion of charter schools and the closure of neighborhood public schools in cities such as Chicago and Detroit redirected educational resources away from poorer communities, fueling tensions over access (Gil, Martínez, and Sequera Reference Gil, Martínez and Sequera2023; Shange Reference Shange2019). In this environment, newly arrived immigrants and underserved poor communities were forced to compete for these resources.

POLITICAL NARRATIVES, FRAMING, AND SOLIDARITY

Contemporary political narratives about race and immigration shape expressions of solidarity and competition. Elite discourse and media representation define which groups are seen as “deserving” of scarce resources. Conservative populist narratives, for instance, divided marginalized communities by framing immigrants as an economic threat to working-class Americans, including native-born Black Americans (Magni Reference Magni2024; Mudde Reference Mudde2019). In a presidential campaign rally in 2024, Donald Trump claimed that immigrants were “taking African-American jobs” (Washington Post 2024), pivoting grievances toward immigrants when systemic disinvestment was the true culprit.

This populist framing extends to high-skilled workers as well. H-1B visa holders have faced increasing nativist resentment, being accused of “taking tech jobs” and “undercutting” American engineers despite evidence that these workers often fill shortages in specialized industries (Chen, Hshieh, and Zhang Reference Chen, Hshieh and Zhang2021). At the same time, neoliberal discourses have promoted the “model-minority” myth, positioning certain immigrant groups as symbols of meritocratic success and thereby reinforcing racial hierarchies (Chou and Feagin Reference Chou and Feagin2016; Merchant Reference Merchant2023). These narratives cause intergroup mistrust that masks the institutional forces that maintain inequality.

Yet, solidarity also has emerged. Black Lives Matter activists worked alongside immigrant-rights organizers to highlight shared struggles against state violence and exclusion (Shange Reference Shange2019). Similarly, aid networks during the COVID-19 pandemic bridged racial and national boundaries, uniting Black, Latino, and migrant communities around health equity and economic justice (Benjamin Reference Benjamin2022; Spade Reference Spade2020). These examples reinforce McClain and Stewart’s (Reference McClain and Stewart1995) insight that coalition forms when groups recognize linked political destinies—even in contexts marked by structural competition. Cooperation and conflict thus coexist, shaped by how resources are distributed and how political institutions respond to competing claims. To examine how these dynamics unfold in practice, the next section outlines the research design and methods used to analyze migrant governance and community responses in Chicago.

FINDINGS: URBAN SPACES AS SITES OF COMPLEX INTERMINORITY RELATIONS

Chicago has been central to Black political power since the Great Migration. Black Chicagoans built strong political organizations, elected influential officials, and fought for inclusion (Baldwin Reference Baldwin2015). Harold Washington, Chicago’s first Black mayor (1983–1987), adopted one of the nation’s first sanctuary ordinances that prohibited city employees from inquiring about immigration status (City of Chicago 1985). Yet, systemic disinvestment and racial segregation have continued to shape how Black residents experience fairness.

Since August 2022, Chicago had received more than 51,000 migrants, primarily Venezuelans and many bused from Texas (City of Chicago 2024; City of Chicago 2025; Texas Governor’s Office 2022). The city’s sanctuary status, reaffirmed under Mayors Lightfoot and Johnson, prohibited cooperation with the federal Immigration Control and Enforcement agency. However, the influx strained local capacity and ignited questions of distribution and justice, particularly in predominantly Black neighborhoods on the South and West Sides.

DISCUSSION: INTRA-BLACK SOLIDARITY AND STRUCTURAL NEGOTIATION

The Chicago case reveals that complicated solidarities operate not only between racial groups but also within them. The relationship between Black Americans and Black immigrants unfolds through shared structural constraints. Whereas Black Americans often have faced cumulative neglect from public agencies for generations, many Black immigrants encounter bureaucratic precarity tied to legal status, employment authorization, and eligibility for municipal programs (Thelamour and George Mwangi Reference Thelamour and Mwangi2021). These asymmetries can create tension when public resources and political visibility appear to favor one group over the other.

Political incorporation also diverges. Black Americans maintain influence through city council representation, church networks, and civic organizations rooted in the Civil Rights and Black Power eras. Black immigrants, by contrast, often mobilize through ethnic associations, religious congregations, and consular networks that operate parallel to but not always in coalition with traditional Black American civic infrastructures (Hamilton Reference Hamilton2020; Okonofua Reference Okonofua2013). When crises such as the recent migrant influx arise, these organizational channels respond at different speeds and scales, shaping how each community perceives fairness and inclusion.

Class divisions further complicate these patterns. African and Caribbean professionals who immigrate to the United States may access white-collar employment and suburban housing more readily than many native-born Black people, who might be concentrated in poor neighborhoods. This differential access to capital and geography can fragment cooperation between the groups (Brown Reference Brown2023; Greene Reference Greene2021). Nevertheless, when both groups experience visible strain, cross-cutting coalitions emerge around issues such as education equity, shared racialization in policing, employment discrimination, and housing exclusion (Nkimbeng et al. Reference Nkimbeng, Taylor, Roberts, Winch, Commodore-Mensah, Thorpe, Han and Szanton2021).

The relationship between Black Americans and Black immigrants is particularly instructive for understanding solidarity because both groups occupy a shared position within American racial hierarchies while they experience that position through different histories. In Chicago, a Haitian immigrant taxi driver and a Black American bus driver may navigate the same discriminatory policing, the same barriers to homeownership, and the same racialized assumptions from employers—even as their pathways into those conditions diverge entirely. This shared exposure to anti-Black racism provides a persistent if sometimes latent foundation for solidarity that distinguishes intra-Black dynamics from broader interminority relations. The question is not whether common ground exists but rather whether political institutions and community organizations cultivate it or allow structural competition to overwhelm it.

Chicago’s migrant crisis exposed both possibilities. In neighborhoods where community organizations facilitated dialogue between long-term Black residents and newly arrived Black immigrant families, tensions did not disappear; they became channeled into shared demands for better city services rather than directed at one another. When no such intermediary structures existed, the absence of solidarity was evidence not that it was impossible but rather that it required institutional scaffolding. As Brown (Reference Brown2023) noted, tensions between Black immigrants and Black Americans contain the seeds of a more capacious politics of Blackness—one that when cultivated through coalition work can transform intragroup friction into collective strength.