Christopher Callegari – Immigration Politics, Policymaking in the U.S.

Author: Christopher Callegari

PA 4 Advocacy Report

May 16, 2019 / Christopher Callegari / 0 Comments

Summary:

I recently reached out to ACLAMO, a Hispanic immigrant advocacy organization based in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. I wanted to share some of my research results and make some observations/suggestions for how to be most effective in immigrant outreach moving forward. After comparing news sources from Montgomery County and Norristown, an urban region within the larger county, I argue that Norristown has a more positive social view of immigrants compared to Montgomery County as a whole. Norristown is also more immigrant-dense, so it likely also has stronger immigrant ties. Although at first one may be inclined to give more support the densely Hispanic immigrant populated region (Norristown), I argue that it would be most effective to offer outreach to the rest of Montgomery County where immigrants tend to have weaker social ties. Past research shows that Hispanic immigrants have weaker ties in all areas but “informational support.” Because advocacy groups most often use education and teaching—which are still extremely valuable—I argue that ACLAMO would be more effective by creating communal areas for people with similar identify backgrounds to interact. These interactions may allow the immigrants living in a sparsely populated area with a more anti-immigrant sentiment to form close connections with others. Other research shows that social ties are important to not feel isolated and to share a communal narrative with others. ACLAMO has dedicated itself to helping Montgomery County’s Hispanic and immigrant population, and I believe that focusing on areas outside of Norristown with the intention to form social ties not necessarily through education is the most effective possible next step.

Full Text:

Immigration is rising globally—leading to a larger amount of migrants and a potential problem for how to best handle societal integration. In order to best help immigrants feel comfortable in their new homes, immigrant advocacy groups often play a central role. Because of this, it is essential that they are acting most effectively in order to help the immigrants who need it most.

I decided to research Pennsylvania District 4—which includes most of Montgomery County. I wanted to reach out to ACLAMO to thank you for your dedication to the Latino community, and to share some of the results from the research that I conducted on the region. In addition, based on my results and data from other studies, I will offer some observations and recommendations for future initiatives for your consideration.

In my study, I looked at two newspapers—Norristown’s The Times Heraldand Montgomery County’s Montgomery Media—in order to determine public opinion on immigration in the two regions. I hypothesized that because Norristown has a higher immigrant and Hispanic population than the rest of Montgomery County as a whole, then the newspaper based in Norristown would be more supportive of immigration though article tone and framing (Wong 2014;BURNS & GIMPEL, 2000). Frames are a heuristic cue that helps people reach a particular conclusion based on the way the information was presented. After conducting a media content analysis of both papers from December 2018 to January 2019, the hypothesis was found to be correct. Norristown’s The Times Herald tended to have a more positive tone towards immigration and also tended to use frames more closely associated with immigration support when compared to Montgomery County’s Montgomery Media.

One’s inclination may be to focus limited resources on areas of higher population. My suggestion, however, is to focus more attention on regions outside of Norristown which are less urban. Although there may be fewer people to appeal to in those areas, immigrants who reside in the rest of Montgomery County may face a more negative attitude from natives (assuming that local media coverage is representative of the native population). In addition, although immigration advocacy and support is important in more urban areas with a higher percentage of immigrants and Hispanics, support outside of an urban center may be even more important. Patricia Fernández-Kelly, a Princeton professor who is a part of the Center for Migration and Development, is studyinghow different immigrant children cope with living in a new environment. She primarily conducts qualitative interviews with residents of Princeton and Trenton in order to understand their thoughts on integration in their new homes. To give context, Trenton tends to have fewer resources and advocacy groups which help support immigrants in comparison to Princeton. She found that students report a higher amount of negative racially pointed language in Trenton, but also view their story as if they are the “protagonists” attempting to overcome discrimination. The children in Princeton, however, tend to feel more isolated and view themselves as outsiders. This situation is somewhat different than in PA, however, because Princeton is less immigrant dense yet more immigrant supportive. Trenton has a larger share of immigrants, yet there is a stronger anti-immigrant sentiment perceived by immigrant children. In PA, Montgomery County is less immigrant dense, but less immigrant supportive than Norristown in particular (according to my findings).

Immigrants from a high concentration area (Trenton) were found to hold a more universal central narrative among the interviewed children than in the low concentration area; and the high concentration area in PA (Norristown) already holds a more positive social view of immigration than Montgomery County. Both of these factors lead me to predict that there is less marginal benefit in conducting more outreach in Norristown, and possibly more benefit in reaching out to the immigrant population residing in suburban/rural Montgomery County. Norristown already has a positive public opinion and an opportunity for immigrants to have strong social ties due to the high concentration. Outreach in Trenton may be logical because of the more hostile social environment, but Norristown—although still requires some outreach—can likely do well with comparatively less.

Although outreach to the rest of Montgomery County has the potential to become ineffective and leave residents isolated (like in the case of Princeton), because of the comparatively anti-immigrant social opinion I argue it is more important to provide systemic support. Hispanic immigrants within suburban/rural Montgomery County likely have much weaker ties than people living in Norristown both because of the decreased proximity to others who share similar ethnic backgrounds, and the smaller percentage of people who identify as Hispanic. Because the immigrant community in Princeton does experience feelings of loneliness and isolation, I suggest that the most effective way of promoting a positive experience for immigrant children is by focusing to expand their social network of people with similar backgrounds, in addition to many of the services that advocacy organizations like ACLAMO traditionally provide such as education, case management, etc. Although those other services are of a high importance, researchers such as Edna A. Viruell-Fuentes have found that Hispanic immigrants have fewer social ties compared to non-Hispanic natives except for “informational support”. Oftentimes, advocacy organizations promote educational opportunities—which is most definitely still useful—but sometimes it may be more effective to simply facilitate a common place where people who may feel marginalized can congregate and potentially form connections. These connections, as seen by Fernández-Kelly’s research, are extremely important in creating a unifying identify so that new immigrant groups do not feel isolated and fearful.

Again, I want to thank everyone at ACLAMO for your service, and I hope that this information may be of use. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Callegari

PA 4 Media Content Analysis

May 11, 2019 / Christopher Callegari / 0 Comments

I have three hypotheses concerning immigration support, population and the media based on the data I collected. My first hypothesis (H1) is that there will be more immigration support in The Times Herald than in Montgomery Media—both newspapers within PA district 4. The Times Herald circulation base is centered in Norristown, while Montgomery Media circulation focus is all of Montgomery County (The largest county covered by PA 4). I argue the comparatively high Hispanic population in Norristown (26.6%) vs. PA 4 as a whole (14.1%) will lead to The Times Herald having greater pro-immigration support. Areas with higher percentage of Hispanic populations are often found to have greater immigration support (Wong 2014). In addition to having a higher percentage Hispanic population that would predict increased immigration support, urban centers in general are found to be more accepting of racial diversity than rural areas (BURNS & GIMPEL, 2000). Because Norristown is much more urban than some of the farmland in other areas of PA 4, I postulate that there will be more immigration support and racial acceptance. Both of these factors will lead to increased immigration support in a newspaper from Norristown compared to one from all of Montgomery County. All of these claims are based under the assumption that the local newspaper will mimic the local population’s opinion, which, although plausible, may not necessarily be true.

My second hypothesis (H2) is that Montgomery Media will tend to use the Economic Consequences frame more often than The Times Herald. If H1 is found to be true, and since partisanship is the greatest predictor of immigration support (Casellas and Leal 2013; Wong 2014), then residents of the entire county may be more conservative/Republican than those of Norristown. Republicans were found to value the outcome of the economy more than Democrats (Partisan Differences on Importance of Issues, 2019), so Montgomery County will give the economy more weight. Again, this is based on the assumption that local newspapers represent the views of the residents in that region.

The third hypothesis (H3) is that The Times Herald will use the human interest frame more often than Montgomery Media. If The Times Herald is found to be more supportive of immigration than Montgomery Media from H1, they will be more likely to discuss immigration in a positive tone. The human interest frame is often found to be more positive in tone than the other frames (Price et al. 1997). Based on this, The Times Herald should use the human interest frame more often than Montgomery Media.

I utilized the methodology in Jeesun Kim’s and Wayne Wanta’s paper on news framing (Kim and Wanta, 2018). They coded for year of publication, article type, news frame, overall tone, and publication location (Kim and Wanta 2018, 100). Their methodology was utilized specifically because they employed “generic frames,” which are well researched, and also are more comparable to other studies (e.g., Gitlin, 1980; Tuchman, 1978 as cited in Kim and Wanta 2018, 92). In the coding category of news frame, Kim and Wanta looked for four major frames: conflict frame, human interest frame, responsibility frame, and economic consequences frame (Kim and Wanta 2018, 92). Each of the frames is defined as follows (Kim and Wanta 2018, 93-94):

“Conflict frames focus on conflict between individuals, groups, or institutions (Neuman et al., 1992) in order to capture audience interest” (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000 as cited in Kim and Wanta 2018, 92).

“The Human Interest Frame uses an individual’s story or an emotional angle to describe an issue, event, or problem” (Valkenburg, Semetko, & de Vreese, 1999 as cited in Kim and Wanta 2018, 93).

“Responsibility Frame describes an issue or problem in a way to attribute responsibility for causing or solving a problem to the government or to an individual or to a group” (Iyengar, 1987; Valkenburg et al., 1999 as cited in Kim and Wanta 2018, 93).

“The Economic Consequences Frame emphasizes the economic effects of actions or events on individuals, groups, or nations” (de Vreese, Peter, & Semetko, 2001; Valkenburg et al., 1999 as cited in Kim and Wanta 2018, 94).

In addition to the amount of reference, I modified Kim and Wanta’s (2018) methodology by assigning number values to article tone. A “1” value means that the article is pro-immigration, a “2” value means the article is neutral or mixed, and a “3” value means the article is anti-immigration.

All of the data collected followed the specific guidelines given for the “Media Content Analysis” assignment. The article dates were between Dec 11, 2018 and Jan 31, 2019. The keywords used were: “Immigration,” “Immigrant,” “Border,” “Wall,” “Undocumented,” “shutdown,” and “security.” The articles that contained more than one term were only counted once. As mentioned before, both the focus and tone were analyzed.

After doing the proposed media analysis following the methodology and guidelines, the results were mostly expected. Montgomery Media had more neutral and anti-immigrant articles (9.09% and 54.55% respectively) than The Times Herald (4.35% and 34.78% respectively). The Times Herald has a more pro-immigration stance (60.87%) compared to Montgomery Media (36.36%). Montgomery Media also had more economic (27.27%), conflict (18.18%), and human interest frames (18.18%) compared to The Times Herald (21.74%, 17.39%, and 17.29% respectively). The only frame that occurred more in The Times Herald was responsibility (43.48%), with Montgomery Media only using it 36.36% of the time. There were 11 articles examined from Montgomery Media and 23 articles examined from The Times Herald that matched the keyword search terms outlined for the assignment.

After examining the results, H1 appears correct. The Times Herald had less anti-immigration sentiment (19.77pp margin), and more pro-immigration sentiment (24.51pp margin) than Montgomery Media. As mentioned previously, there is a substantially higher Hispanic population in Norristown (26.6%) than in the entirety of PA 4 (14.1%). An increased Hispanic population is associated with increased immigration support, so the results logically follow (Wong 2014). Additionally, urban centers are more likely to accept racial diversity than rural areas (BURNS & GIMPEL, 2000). Because Norristown is much more urban than all of Montgomery county, this finding is also in line with the media analysis data seen here.

H2 also appears to be correct because Montgomery Media used the Economic Consequences frame more often than The Times Herald (5.53pp margin). Partisanship is often the best predictor of immigration support (Casellas and Leal 2013; Wong 2014). Because The Times Herald was more supportive of immigration, it follows that they are more likely to be Democratic than Montgomery Media. In general, Republicans value the outcome of the economy more than Democrats (Partisan Differences on Importance of Issues, 2019). If Montgomery Media is more likely to be closer to Republican than The Times Herald is, they are also more likely to value the outcome of the economy more. This theory seems to be supported by the evidence gathered.

H3 appears to be incorrect. Although they were close to equal, The Times Herald used the human interest frame less often (.89pp margin) than Montgomery Media. One possible reason for this incorrect hypothesis is that both regions are majority non-Hispanic white. Because of this, they may not have a strong personal identity with the individual story of a particular Hispanic immigrant. Although these stories may be convincing to some, lacking a personal connection with the subject could make for a less convincing argument. The authors could have taken this into account and instead utilized the responsibility frame which The Times Herald used more frequently than Montgomery Media (7.12pp margin). The responsibility frame could focus on a more generally applicable and relatable argument for immigration—taking public good and general moral responsibility into account. Although this is one possible causal explanation, there is no definitive singular reason as to why The Times Herald and Montgomery Media did not fit within the predictive literature.

There are also ways to improve this experiment in the future. Because of the sample size difference (n=11 for Montgomery Media and n=23 for The Times Herald) we should cover a wider time period selection to see if the observed trends remain. Although H1 and H2 were both found to be true, the results would be strengthened utilizing a longer term approach to media analysis with both larger n values and also information on how the data trends over time.

Pennsylvania District 4 Demographics

April 15, 2019 / Christopher Callegari / 0 Comments

Because Pennsylvania has been redistricted in both 2011 and 2018, it has been very challenging to determine accurate historical demographic information for PA 4. Prior to 2011, the geographically closest district to PA 4 was PA 13. The new PA 4 covers almost all of the old PA 13, plus some more suburban/rural land northwest of Philadelphia. Luckily following the 2011 redistricting, PA 13 remained virtually unchanged. From 2007 to 2018 PA 13 is the closest district to PA 4, and although it is not entirely representative of the demographics, it is the best estimate given PA’s frequent redistricting. From 2007 to 2017 the white population has consistently decreased (-16.7 pp), while the Black or African American, Asian, and Hispanic populations have all increased (+8.3, +4.6, +9.3 pp respectively). The percent foreign-born population has also risen (+7.34 pp), while the non-Hispanic population went down (-22.6 pp).

Newman et al. examined support for Trump over multiple periods of time using some of Trump’s controversial immigration comments as markers. They found that places with high Latino growth rates were more likely to support Trump. These findings likely relate to the way Trump frames his often-negative description of immigrants. As a political elite, his framing may influence his followers and potentially even prime them to view immigration as a more important issue than they would have deemed originally. In addition to Newman et al., Abrajano and Hajnal addressed how population characteristics influence perceptions on immigration. Specifically, they showed that immigration coverage has gone up over the past 30+ years and it is often negative in content. The Latino threat narrative could either cause this, or it could also be a major factor contributing to the idea. Regardless, immigrants have been discussed more often in the media, and they have been described in more negative ways. In 2010, Hopkins also found that as long as immigration has a high national salience, living where many immigrants are moving to is linked to negative attitudes about immigrants. This is a similar finding to what Newman et al. describes. The Latino population growth rate is important in understanding the native attitudes surrounding immigration. Public opinion on immigration also seems to be racially biased—in 2008 Brader et al. found that there is a more negative public opinion about Latino immigrants than European ones. This finding fits with much of the other data examined because of a larger anti-Latino threat narrative.

Following from the fact that PA 4’s Hispanic population has steadily increased since at least 2007, and that the % foreign-born has also increased, the literature would generally suggest negative attitudes towards immigration. More specifically, Newman et al. predicts that because PA 4 has a high Latino population growth rate over time, there could likely be increased support for Trump and propagation of his hostile anti-immigrant language. Immigration media coverage too will likely appear more negative now, while also being discussed more frequently (Abrajano and Hajnal 2015). This increased media presence paired with a growing foreign-born population could also likely result in backlash against immigration (Hopkins 2010). In addition, there will likely be a comparatively negative view against Latino immigrants than those coming from Europe (Brader et al. 2008). This is particularly relevant because the white population in PA 4 is falling, while foreign-born and Hispanic population is increasing, which could lead to decreased immigration support. Surprisingly, although the literature overwhelmingly predicts that PA 4 would have negative immigrant attitudes, the policy and strongly democratic partisan lean seems to contradict this. Although I will have a better understanding after testing these predictions specifically, it appears extremely unlikely that the district holds such negative attitudes while the MC is co-sponsoring multiple bills in support of immigration, and the fact that Montgomery County—which almost aligns exactly with PA 4—is a sanctuary area for immigrants. Although these predictions may be accurate on a national scale, I question how applicable they will be to PA 4.

Ideally, I would secure one interview with PA 4’s MC and one interview with a first generation Latino immigrant in the district. To reach out to someone in Madeline Dean’s office, I will email and subsequently call if they are unresponsive to my email. I would explain exactly why I want to speak with them and how I am a student at Princeton University. Hopefully, they will take at least ~10 minutes to quickly answer my questions about public feedback regarding PA 4’s immigration policy. Does the MC’s office qualitatively find that people who reach out are generally in support or against the fairly pro-immigration stance by the district? Although this question would not give a definitive result in either direction because of the massive selection bias of people who make the effort to contact their local representatives, it would be fascinating to see if the public generally propagates anti-immigrant rhetoric like Newman et al would predict. In addition, in order to directly gauge first-generation immigrant experience, I want to reach out to someone who has moved to PA 4 for most of his or her lifetime. A man who lives two houses down from me is a first generation Latino immigrant, so he will be the first person I reach out to. From his experience, has he generally seen negative attitudes about immigration or has there been more widespread support? How often has he heard people repeating the negative discriminatory language used by political elites such as Trump? How has this public opinion changed over time? Based on these responses, if anti-immigration rhetoric has increased over time, then it would support the prediction that a rising Latino and foreign-born population could cause negative native attitudes on immigration.

Immigration In PA District 4

March 6, 2019 / Christopher Callegari / 0 Comments

Because of the redistricting for all of the congressional districts in Pennsylvania in February of 2018, the first five election results are not particularly representative of district 4’s populace. Previously, district 4 was located in central/western Pennsylvania which is a very different environment than the Philadelphia suburbs. Although in the far northwest sections of the new PA 4 there is rural farmland, prior to 2018 rural land was the majority. This explains why after the switch, a Democrat with a 26.79% margin replaced a Republican who previously won by margins of 49.08% and 32.14%. The new PA 4 is entirely different geographically than the pre-2018 district.

The two papers which focused most on the impact of both electorate and congressional characteristics were Casellas and Leal (2013) and Wong (2014). The most prominent finding from both papers seemed to be that partisan divide is the biggest predictor for determining a stance on immigration. When either an MC is Republican, or an area is predominately Republican, it is more likely to hold a restrictive stance on immigration. If the area is mostly Democratic or if the MC is a Democrat, then the reverse would likely be true (Casellas and Leal 2013) (Wong 2014). In addition, MCs who are new to office are more prone to support restriction (Casellas and Leal 2013). This could potentially be caused by a reluctance to make a big change or take a strong stance in order to not alienate a sector of the MC’s electorate. Wong (2014) also found unemployment to be associated with support of enforcement bills. One potential causal reason for this is because of a fear that immigrants will choose to work for lower wages and increase labor competition in the region. The ethnicity of the MC and his or her electorate is also an important factor—Hispanic and Asian voters are less likely to support restrictive immigration bills (Wong 2014). In addition, non-white MC’s as a whole are more prone to loosening immigration laws. The amount of foreign-born individuals also makes it more likely for a region to be in support of immigration (Casellas and Leal 2013).

Following on the predictions presented in slide 2, I compare how PA 4 appears based on the national findings in Casellas and Leal (2013) and Wong (2014). Since Madeleine Dean won by such a large margin, I argue that PA 4 is predominately Democratic. If the district is in fact very partisan, even if some other factors suggest a lean towards anti-immigration, partisanship is still the most important indicator as shown by Casellas and Leal (2013) and Wong (2014). Based on this evidence alone, PA 4 would strongly support loosening of immigration laws. The findings for electoral threat, unemployment, race, and amount foreign-born suggest otherwise, however. Madeleine Dean is newly elected in 2018, so she may be more prone to favor restrictive bills. She does not want to upset the people who elected her with a polarizing stance on an important issue. In addition, having over double the national unemployment rate suggests a conclusion that the district would not support immigration. The racial makeup is also much less diverse than the US, and mostly comprised of Caucasians—suggesting again that there may be an anti-immigration lean. The amount of foreign-born citizens as shown by the pie chart is quite small, which may make the topic of immigration less of a priority than other more personalized issues for this electorate. Although everything besides partisan divide suggests that PA 4 may not be in favor of increased immigration, I believe that because of such a large partisan divide, Madeline Dean will support loosening of immigration laws.

Because of the redistricting and the fact that Madeleine Dean was elected so recently, it was challenging to find comprehensive congressional records for the region. Madeleine Dean is co sponsoring two bills which relate to immigration: H.R.541 and H.J.Res.46. H.R.541 stops agents at the border up to 100 miles inland from separating a child from a parent or guardian even if they entered the country illegally. The bill specifies specific cases where the child may be separated such as abuse or suspected future harm, but the purpose is to give immigrant families more rights. Without this, a small child may be taken from his or her parents simply because they were trying to enter without proper authorization. In addition, H.J.Res.46 would end President Trump’s national emergency relating to immigration over the US/Mexico border. Both of these bills suggest Madeleine Dean is at least partially supportive of immigration. Outside of these two bills, there was little information to glean from her public accounts and websites. The only other vaguely related reference I found was that she wanted to “[Empower] Our Diverse Communities.” Although that is nowhere near an explicit statement of support for immigration, by strengthening minority communities, she would also be strengthening immigrant communities (since they are often found to be the minority). One reason this may be a difficult topic to find information on is because immigration may not be a prominent issue for PA 4 specifically. With a small amount of foreign born individuals, it appears that there are not many people moving to the area from abroad, so the populace may prioritize issues that pertain directly to them.

Immigration Advocates Urge D.C. Government To Increase Legal Funding

March 6, 2019 / Christopher Callegari / 0 Comments

https://wamu.org/story/19/03/04/immigration-advocates-urge-d-c-government-to-increase-legal-funding-to-2-5-million/

Local immigrant advocacy groups are often some of the most important bridges immigrants have with integrating into local US society. As the article shows, these groups are often underfunded and thus limited in their powers. Advocacy groups are asking to increase the Immigrant Justice Legal Services (IJLS) grant in Washington DC, which would result in legal groups being able to respond to a much larger number of requests.

Discussion Questions:

Is it the government’s responsibility to partially fund non-profit organizations which could help effectively integrate new immigrant populations? If the government should support these non-profits, is the onus on local, state, or federal governments?
To follow up that question, should organizations focused only on defending immigrants in court be funded? Ought there be a difference in funding between these types of organizations, and ones not focused on legal defense since they both result in increased comfort and a feeling of acceptance for immigrants within the community?
How can non-political organizations (Such as the Calvary Baptist Church mentioned in the article) become more widely known so immigrants can find places to gather without needing to be focused on a political topic?