Op-Ed Summary:
The most effective immigration representation strategy for Democrat Abigail Spanberger in Virginia’s seventh congressional district is to continue the strategy she has employed since entering office: be a quiet supporter of immigrant rights. Spanberger should use her votes to support immigrants by voting consistently with the Democratic Party, but given the historic conservatism and demographics in VA-07, she should not be vocal in her pro-immigrant stance. VA-07 has not seen a Democratic representative since 1971, and in 2014 it voted out an incumbent Republican leader to replace him with Tea Party conservative Dave Brat. In addition, the district has a small minority of immigrants and is majority white, but that majority has shrunk over the last decade. All of this signals anti-immigrant sentiment in the district. However, the electorate chose a female Democrat over reelecting an inactive Brat, thereby indicating that a commitment to representing what the district wants is more important than party in VA-07. Therefore, by not tweeting and making public statements that show great support for immigrants, Spanberger shows respect for constituency’s attitudes on immigration and will put VA-07 first. Perhaps this will help push the district to the left as voters will see Democrats like Spanberger as the ones who best represent them, which in turn helps immigrants in the long-term as a left-leaning government is important for crafting policies that promote immigrant integration. Therefore, Spanberger is already employing the most effective immigrant representation strategy by being a quiet supporter of immigrant rights through her votes.
This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations. – Morgan Bell
Morgan argues that Representative Spanberger should continue her strategy when it comes to immigration and keep voting for pro-immigrant policies but remain unvocal about her views. The district holds anti-immigrant attitudes and is historically Republican, but still voted a Democratic representative into office. Therefore, she should act on the pro-immigrant desires of those who voted her into office, while avoiding backlash and resistance from the largely anti-immigrant district residents. I agree with Morgan’s argument because logically, it makes sense for Spanbergr to hold a delicate balance between appeasing both the turning tides of pro-immigration attitudes and the still present, traditionally negative immigrant perceptions. Her argument is also supported by evidence. She accurately interprets studies by Wong and Casellas and Leal to establish the ideas that smaller immigrant populations like that of VA-07 and its traditionally Republican support informs the district’s hostile and unwelcoming views towards immigrants. This research explains the sentiments of Spanberger’s district and why she should not be too public about her Democratic, permissive stances. To further strengthen her argument about why Spanberger should continue to vote Democrat despite the negative sentiments towards immigration, Morgan could have drawn from Yoshikawa’s 2016 research. Spanberger’s support for pro-immigrant policies allows her to avoid psychological and mental health declines among young immigrants in the district due to social isolation in anti-immigrant communities and to ease tensions between immigrant and native groups and between Latino and white populations. She can maintain overall social well-being and encourage integration of the immigrant population that may begin to change the conservative attitudes of the district and allow her to become more vocal about her stance.