Maya Aronoff – Immigration Politics, Policymaking in the U.S.

Author: Maya Aronoff

AZ 4 and MI 8 by Maya Aronoff and Rebekah Ninan

May 16, 2019 / Maya Aronoff / 2 Comments

Michigan’s eighth District (MI-8) and Arizona’s fourth District (AZ-4) exist at opposite poles of the county, in states along the southern and northern borders. While Arizona flanks Mexico, Michigan is linked to Canada by its many Great Lakes. Scholarship has demonstrated that states close to the Southern border are most likely to have media that frames immigration as a Latino threat, or covers immigration with a negative tone, than states farther away (Branton & Dunway 2009, Dunway, Brandon, & Abrajano 2010). This work does not compare the rhetoric in southern border states to the rhetoric in northern border states, however. This presentation will more broadly explore the question: is immigration rhetoric (broadly defined as media, representatives’ statements, and policy discourse) in a northern border state more similar to that in a southern border state than previous work might imply? Is there something about being on a border that might shape what kinds of immigration policies a representative should pursue? As the literature suggests, we find that immigration is more salient for AZ 4 and that policies are more restrictive than in MI 8–however, rhetoric in MI 8 does frame immigration as a matter of northern border security in ways that may impact policy.

To explore this, we use the 8th district and the 4th district because not only are they both in border states, but they have some basic demographic similarities. Both districts are roughly eighty percent white, with about ten percent foreign born population (the average/slightly below average percentages when compared to the nation as a whole). Research suggests that a higher percentage of foreign born population correlates to support for more accepting immigration policy (Wong 2014). By this metric we might expect these two border states to have roughly similar, perhaps moderately restrictive, immigration policy. Indeed, both districts are red leaning, and a multitude of studies have shown that partisanship is a key predictor in support for immigration policies at both the national and local level (Casellas and Leas 2013; Ramakrishnan and Wong 2010). Furthermore, media and politicians in both districts frame immigration as a national security issue.

Despite these similarities, key differences have emerged in the reality of their immigration politics. MI-8 is now represented by a Democrat, Elissa Slotkin, who has relatively moderate views on immigration policy, while AZ-4 is represented by Paul Gosar, one of the most conservative members of congress in favor of extremely restrictive immigration policy. Gosar uses half of his tweets to discuss immigration and initiating numerous pieces of legislation restricting immigration and immigrant’s rights. In contrast, Slotkin has not initiated any bills directly related to immigration. Sometimes, she will tolerate restrictive policy–her bipartisan gun control legislation had a motion requiring a 30 second vote slipped in mandating ICE calls for undocumented immigrants who attempted to purchase guns. Furthermore, local media coverage of immigration in Arizona’s fourth district is much more ubiquitous than in Michigan’s eighth district.

There are key differences between the districts that can explain the difference in immigration policy between them, using existing literature. First, Branton et. al (2009, 2010) show that spatial proximity to the Southern U.S.-Mexico border leads to greater newspaper coverage of immigration issues. That coverage is more likely to frame immigration as a Latino threat (Hopkins 2010, Abrajano & Hajnal 2015, Newman et. al 2018). This accurately represents the difference in coverage between AZ-4 and MI-8. Immigration is discussed in almost thirty percent of local media coverage in Arizona’s fourth district, when looking to local sources such as the Arizona Patch. This media coverage, particularly that framing immigration as a Latino narrative, can lead to more negative anti-immigrant beliefs, as proven by Abrajano and Hajnal 2015.

Second, although Michigan’s eighth district and Arizona’s fourth district have similar percentages of foreign born population, AZ-4’s immigrant population is majority Latino, whereas MI-8’s is very heterogeneous. This means that in AZ-4, there is a rapidly increasing heterogenous Latino population in a Republican district where media that frames Latinos as a threat is widespread. These are the typical conditions where the Latino threat narrative is most salient and leads to white backlash, which correlates to greater support for restrictive immigration policy and Republican candidates (Enos 2014, Abrajano and Hajnal 2015, Wong 2014)

Differences in AZ 4 and MI 8 policy are also consistent with literature on the role of partisanship, which universally correlates stronger support for Republican representatives, and Republican leadership, with more restrictive policies (Wong 2014; Casellas and Leal 2013; Ramakrishnan et al. 2010; Wong 2012). Also consistent, Slotkin as a first term rep and Democratic rep in a polarized district voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security to end the shutdown (Valenzuela 2019).

This comparison gives two potential contributions to this literature. First, the comparison implies that percentage foreign born is not as strong a metric as the percentage. Latino for predicting white backlash, and this is consistent with other studies. Second, we find that rhetoric surrounding immigration in MI 8 explicitly links immigration to security and to the northern border. In an interview for this study, Slotkin explained her belief that increased border security was necessary by saying “they never talk about the northern border. We are a border state, we do a tremendous amount of work to prevent the flow of terrorists and illegal material.” Although Slotkin does not explicitly link immigrants to a drug threat, she does focus on combating the opioid crisis–especially important in a district where opioid deaths occur at a rate 6 percentage points higher than the national average, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This is then linked to immigration by the media, according to her campaign adviser, who said they recieve calls about drugs and the border wall when “the President is angry…and Fox news is talking about it.”

Comparing MI 8 to AZ 4 reveals the complex relationship, then, between border proximity, demographics, and securitization of immigration. MI 8, which is highly segregated, has two counties that are high minority (Lansing in Ingham county 55% white, 13% foreign born) and low minority (Livingston 96% white). From December 11, 2018 to January 31, 2019, in both the Lansing State Journal and the Livingston Daily immigration salience in media was, although it is positive when covered in the Lansing State Journal. However, Oakland county (75% white) is most demographically similar to AZ 4 (75% white). In both Oakland county and AZ 4, media covers immigration issues frequently, links the government shutdown to immigration, and frames immigration as a Latino threat linked to drugs. This suggests that the northern border may become most securitized under conditions of white backlash, where minority populations are enough to be seen as a threat but not enough to shift policy leftward.

Based on these findings we recommend that both Slotkin and Gosar shift to frame border security as “smart security” on legal points of entry. Massey demonstrates that increasing militarization of the border is not effective at curbing immigration, and numerous exposes have shown that most narcotics are smuggled through legal ports of entry–so the two should both focus their efforts on improving search techniques at those ports in both the north and the south.

Slotkin should also frame immigration as an economic need, since Michigan farmers require their labor supply and Lansing has a stellar track record of integrating refugees from around the world (Slotkin, Anderson 2008). Research shows that the way politicians frame issues can have real impacts on constituent beliefs and this shift could mitigate white backlash as immigrant population continues to grow (Jones Bradford & Martin 2017). Finally, Slotkin should pursue very local solutions tailored to the segregated district. For example, Lansing City Counsel should re-issue it’s commitment to becoming a sanctuary city (which it announced and then rescinded in 2017); while more conservative Livingston and Oakland would benefit from programs that assist immigrants without increasing the salience of the issue and provoking more backlash. For example, those counties could benefit from the community ID program implemented in Princeton, NJ and other locations (De Graauw 2014, Gonzalez et. al 2017).

Gosar or a potential Democratic challenger should also pursue policies and rhetoric to combat white backlash, by not conflating Latinos with illegal immigration, by reducing unemployment, and decoupling AZ 4’s border policies from the national discussion (Abrajano and Hajnal 2015, Hopkins 2010). For a Democrat to flip AZ 4, they would need to mobilize the Latino vote. They could do this by galvanizing Latino anger, taking advantage of low Latino identification with the Republican party, and supporting a pathway to citizenship (Bowler et. al 2006, Valentino & Neuner 2017, White 2016).

This comparison is limited in scope because it contrasts only two districts, with many exogenous variables. However, it lays the groundwork for more thorough future research investigating how northern border states might frame immigration differently than interior and southern border states. This project has shown that although existing literature accurately predicts that AZ 4 will have more restrictive policies and that immigration will be more salient compared to MI 8, our qualitative analysis shows that rhetoric in MI 8 does incorporate the northern border into understandings of immigration and security. Further research should systematically compare the media, representative rhetoric, and policies between northern border states, and compared to southern border states.

MI District 8 – Media Content Analysis

May 14, 2019 / Maya Aronoff / 0 Comments

Note: my research plan changed from Assignment 2 to Assignment 3, with Professor Valenzuela’s permission.

Existing research on the relationship between media coverage and immigration attitudes, and by extension support for candidates that support restrictive policies, is extensive. Scholarship suggests higher % immigrant and Latino populations correlates to more accepting policies supported, but that if the Latino population is rising in a Republican district it will provoke a white “backlash” and increase support for Republican candidates with restrictive policies–especially when political rhetoric and/or national media frames increasing immigration as a Latino threat (Wong 2014, Enos 2014, Aptekar 2008, Hopkins 2010m Abrajano & Hajnal 2015, Newman et. al 2018). National media coverage of immigration has been shown to often frame immigration as a Latino threat, with a negative tone (Abrajano & Hajnal 2015). Scholarship has demonstrated that states close to the Southern border are most likely to have media that frames the issue as a Latino threat, or cover immigration with a negative tone, than states farther away (Branton & Dunway 2009).

Since District 8 is Republican-leaning with a growing foreign-born population, the literature would predict that media frames immigration as a Latino threat with a negative tone. However, since Michigan is far from the Southern border, literature doesn’t necessarily concretely predict how salient the issue will be and how frequent coverage is. Furthermore, it does not predict what kind of threat the Latino immigration is framed as. Finally, existing literature has not explored how county-level coverage might differ in a segregated, politically polarized district.

Michigan’s District 8 is far from the Southern border and political polarized, with overall demographics are 8.4% foreign born–but the district is highly segregated. In 2017, Livingston county was 97% white; Oakland was 75% white, and Ingham county was 75% (but the city within it, Lansing, was 55% white with an increasing foreign born population around 13%). From this emerges two research questions:

What is the focus, framing, and tone of local media coverage in District 8 from December 11 2018 to January 31 2019 on immigration and the government shutdown?
Are there significant differences in the focus, framing, and tone of local media coverage in the three different counties?

In order to address these questions we did a media content analysis of local news coverage of the January 2019 federal government shutdown and surrounding debate, focusing on framing and tone of coverage. This analysis compares online coverage by the Lansing State Journal (Ingham), the Livingston Daily (Livingston), and The Oakland Press (Oakland). This analysis will consider three metrics: salience, focus, and tone. Salience will be measured the number of articles related to the shutdown, border security, or immigration even tangentially. These articles will be those that respond to a keyword search of phrases including “immigration,” “immigrant,” “undocumented,” “border,” “shutdown,” “security,” and “Latinos.” Focus will be measured by the number of articles that frame immigration in different ways (ex. A Latino influx, a broader influx, a matter of border security, an economic issue, or as a side issue of the government shutdown). Tone will be measured by considering the framing of the article and pejorative adjectives used. Articles focusing on immigration as a “crisis,” or articles focusing on negative consequences of the immigration debate (like the shutdown) will be considered “negative” in tone. Those focusing on the contributions of immigrants to their communities will be considered “positive.” Articles humanizing Latino immigrants and describing the obstacles they face crossing the Southern border does not fall clearly into either category, especially if their arrival is still described as a threat.

We hypothesize that overall coverage in the district will be moderate, and that the coverage will primarily frame immigration as an economic issue–whether negatively, as an issue that precipitated the government shutdown; or positively, as something that is necessary for the district’s agricultural sector. We hypothesize that coverage by the Lansing State Journal will more often frame immigration as a human rights issue and with a positive tone, compared to The Livingston Daily and the The Oakland Press.

Out of 58 total articles across all three papers that touched on immigration or the government shutdown, 53 focused primarily on the shutdown itself rather than immigration policy. Patterns of coverage also varied wildly between the three papers. The Lansing State Journal, despite frequent coverage of immigrants in the past (framing immigrants as contributors to society with a positive tone), did not have any articles on immigrants or immigrant policy during this period. All 11 pieces on the government shutdown focused on its negative economic impacts for the community; only 1 even mentioned immigration (“Michigan federal workers feel like hostages in border wall fight while work goes undone”) but the contents of the article framed immigration as largely irrelevant to the district. Instead, the issue was framed as a purely partisan conflict. The Livingston Daily had even lower coverage of the issues, with only 4 articles even remotely related to either issue during this period. ¾ were actually collected letters to the editor, about a paragraph long, sent anonymously and framing immigration as both beneficial and a Latino threat.

The Oakland Press had the highest attention to the issue, with 43 articles connected to the shutdown or immigration. 5 of these articles were not related to the shutdown at all, but framed immigration as a Latino threat to both health (opioids) and safety (due to their criminality) with a highly negative tone. For example, one article on a hit and run began with the sentence: “Friends and family members of a Wixom teen who died last June after a hit-and-run near his home filled an Oakland County courtroom Thursday to hear the fate of the illegal immigrant who killed him.” Like the Lansing State Journal, 8 articles on the shutdown purely covered the political contest–but 30 explicitly linked the shutdown to the fight over Trump’s border wall and immigration policy. Although 6 of these were op-eds framing immigration as beneficial and framing Trump as cruel and uninformed, the majority of the non-editorial articles at least implicitly framed immigration as an economic threat because immigration was shown to be in some way causing the devastating shutdown. 6 articles made this “Latino threat narrative” explicit, using racist language to frame Latinos as a “crisis” of “illegals” that are “inching towards” the border. These articles used extremely positive adjectives to describe Trump’s approach. Roughly 10 articles were also “neutral” in tone, serving to fact-check Trump’s assessments about the so-called Latino threat and in one case simply describe a court ruling–but one could also argue these fact-checks frame Trump’s policies as racist by simply checking the facts.

Before evaluating how these results hold up against the hypothesis, it is important to caveat these findings. First, the three papers have different operating procedures–in particular, the Oakland Press re-publishes outside contributions by their reporters, meaning they “publish” a larger volume of articles than the other two papers in general. Second, no quantitative scraping of the websites was done to find out exactly how many articles each paper published during the time, so it’s difficult to say that immigration was “salient” or “not salient” without having another topic to compare it to. Finally, this analysis revealed the power of qualitative analysis and close reading that complicates our ability to draw the line between “framing” and “tone,” since often multiple frames are operating within the same article (ie the shutdown is framed as Trump’s failure; but immigration is still framed as a “crisis”), complicating a simple binary between a pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant article with clear implications for the reader’s understanding.

When compared to our hypothesis, our findings complicated the hypotheses. Our hypothesis that, overall, media would give limited coverage to immigration but frame it as a Latino threat with a negative tone was confirmed. More articles considered it a threat than did not–however, it was by no means all articles Our hypothesis that media would portray immigration as an economic issue was somewhat confirmed. On the one hand, many articles linked immigration to the shutdown–implicitly linking it to economic threat even if the article itself did not frame individual immigrants as threatening. However, no articles framed immigration as beneficial to the economy. Our hypothesis that the different county papers would cover immigration and the shutdown differently was confirmed. Lansing (the lowest population of whites) had the most positive framing and tone; Livingston (the highest population of whites) had the least coverage at all. Oakland (in the middle) had the most coverage, the greatest variety of framing and tone, and the most negative framing and tone. Why should be the subject of further research–it is possible that changing demographics surrounding Oakland, which borders other districts, plays a role.

Latino Backlash

May 1, 2019 / Maya Aronoff / 0 Comments

“Protests Across US Call for End to Migrant Family Separations,” Contextualized By Pew Research Data

The article below describes the massive nation-wide protests in June of 2019 in response to the exposure of Trump’s increased family separation policy, when journalists revealed that thousands of children were not only incarcerated, subject to violence and sexual abuse, and taken away from their immigrant parents (often asking for asylum), but due to an indifferent and disorganized bureaucratic process “lost” to their true parents through the records. The famous videos about the separation policy sparked protests often organized by Latino community members. These protests, and the data from Pew, reinforce the research we’ve read in class that posits restrictive immigration policies stoke fear and/or anger in the Latino community, generating a backlash–where Latinos are more likely to vote Democrat and more likely to turn out to vote after such policies are enacted and become salient (Pantoja, Ramirez, and Seguar 2001, Bower, Nicholson and Segura 2006, Zepeda-Millan and Wallace 2014, Stokes-Brown 2006, Branton, Martinez-Ebers, Carey Jr and Matsubayashi 2010, White 2016, working research by Valenzuela 2019). As this research on past restrictive policies and elections predicts, 27% of Latinos voting in the 2018 midterms were voting for the first time, and the majority voted for Democratic candidates. The research by Pew also provides potential causal mechanisms by which these academic projects hold true–for example, why, as White shows, does the backlash occur among Latinos who are citizens and not in danger of being victim to the policy? 55% of the Latino community worries that someone they know could be deported.

This research and the articles on protest raise several important questions for this weeks’ reading:

the PEW statistics demonstrate a significant gender gap in Latino voting, with a greater percentage of Latino women voting Democrat than Latino men. And despite the problems with exit-poll statistics, there is a percentage of Latinos still voting for Republicans–less than 29%, perhaps, as discussed in lecture, but certainly over 0%. What might account for the sections of the Latino community who do not “backlash” and divisions within the community, such as gender?
Valenzuela’s working research assumes that white rage over restrictive policies won’t lead to increased mobilization. To what extent is this assumption true? How can we test it? And how do we understand non-Latino (including non-white) responses to restrictive policies, such as their participation in mass mobilization like the protests around family separation? How sustained was this engagement when the media stopped reporting on the issue?

More Latinos Have Serious Concerns About Their Place in America Under Trump

Key takeaways about Latino voters in the 2018 midterm elections

4. Views of immigration policy

Michigan District 8 Demographics

April 15, 2019 / Maya Aronoff / 0 Comments

Michigan’s 8th District now includes parts of Ingham county, Livingston county, and most of Oakland county. The area encompasses stretches of rural communities and farmland, affluent suburbs, Michigan State University, and sections of the state’s capital Lansing. These 4 slides will analyze the demographic makeup of the district, existing literature on the relationship between demographics and immigration policy, media, and experience, and use that literature to predict future findings about the district. The demographics we will analyze are based on US Census Data, and the years in which it is available for the geographic areas in question. 2007 and 2017 are both pulled from a 1-year estimate of the district population; 2012 data is a 3-year estimate because a 1-year estimate was not available. Data for specific counties was available for 2010 and 2017 for some counties, and only 2010 for others.

District 8 is a wealthy, mostly white district which has become increasingly racially diverse in the past decade; but its demographic changes have varied greatly between counties. In 2007, the district was 89% white, 3.9% Latino,4.6% Black, 2.4% Asian, and 4.9% foreign born. At the time, the district included Shiawassee and Clinton counties (both of which were 97% white in 2010), but in 2012 redistricting removed those counties and added more area in Oakland county (which was 96% white in 2010). After this redistricting occurred, in 2012, district 8 was 86.6% white, 4.5% Latino, 5.6% Black, 3.6% Asian, and 6.8% foreign born. This constituted a .6 percentage point increase in the Latino population and .8 percentage point increase in the Asian population; and a 2 percentage point increase in the foreign born population. This increase could have been partially due to the redistricting, but the slight increase in Black, Latino, Asian, and foreign born populations continued. In 2017 district 8 was 85% white, 5% Latino, 6% Black, 4.4% Asian, and 8.6% foreign born (a .4 percentage point increase from the Latino population in 2012; a .8 percentage point increase from the Asian population; and a 1.8 percentage point increase in the foreign born population). From these trends we conclude that originally very small Latino, Asian, and foreign born populations were increasing. 50% of these immigrants identified as Asian, 14% were Latino. It’s important to note the actual number of whites in the district may be skewed, since Lansing was a popular destination for Syrian refugees during this period, and the census would have forced these groups to identify as either “white” or “Asian.” The geographic distribution of these demographic changes has also varied greatly between counties and even within them. Ingham County was 75% white (2017); Oakland 75% (2017); Livingston county was 96.7% white in 2010 and was likely in that range by 2017 to enable the 85% white statistic for the district as a whole. Latino, Black, and Asian populations have risen around 3 percentage points each from 2010 to 2017 in Ingham County; while only Asian populations have risen over 1 percentage point in Oakland County. Both counties have foreign-born populations above the district average (8.9 and 13.5% respectively (2017)). Even within Ingham county itself, the city of Lansing was 55.5% Non-Hispanic white, 23.7% African American, 3.7% Asian, and 12.5% Latino in 2010, while the rural town of Mason was 90.2% White, 5.9% African American, 0.9% Asian, and 3.7% Latino that same year.

There is extensive literature attempting to delineate the relationship between demographics, public opinion towards immigration, immigrant portrayal in the media, and immigrant experience. Literature suggests that higher % of immigrant and Latino populations correlates to more accepting policies supported, but that if the Latino population is rising in a Republican district it will provoke a backlash–or that the presence of “outsiders,” particularly if they seek political power, may provoke a white backlash against immigration in general (Wong 2014, Enos 2014, Aptekar 2008). Specifically, Enos’ work explores whether or not direct contact with Spanish-speakers makes whites less accepting of immigrants (it appeared to do so in the short term) and Abrajano & Hajnal demonstrate that increasing Latino populations correlate to support for Republican candidates and restrictive policies at the state level (Enos 2014, Abarajano & Hajnal 2015). Other scholars have argued, however, that hostile political reactions are most likely not only when communities have increasing Latino or immigrant populations, but when salient national rhetoric then reinforces the threat by “politicizing places” (Hopkins 2010). National media coverage of immigrants in general frames immigration as a Latino threat, with a negative tone (Abrajano & Hajnal 2015). Studies have shown that increased support for Republicans and restrictive policies on the national level have followed periods of immigrant influx, media coverage, and negative statements by politicians (Abrajano & Hajnal 2015, Newman et. al 2018). Of course, the public opinion of their neighbors and the policies the majority supports impact immigrant experience directly–even just in terms of mental health, since studies suggest immigrants in majority-white high-resource places feel less integrated and hopeful than those in under-resources majority-minority places (Fernandez Kelly). Strong advocacy networks for immigrants–such as NGOs, unions, or Democratic party strongholds–can provide avenues for increased integration, however. This can occur without the organization (for example, the Democratic party) prioritizing the needs of immigrants, as immigrants and their children take advantage of existing networks to become politically involved (Andersen 2008, de Graauw 2008). Andersen studies Lansing specifically, noting how strong interrelated networks of advocacy correlated to high integration (measured by naturalization rates, embracing of immigrants’ needs in local schools, and political representation).

These studies provide sometimes clear, sometimes ambiguous predictions for District 8. Most clearly, the research implies that immigrants in immigrant-concentrated areas like Lansing will be even more integrated than in 2008; while immigrants in almost all-white areas like Livingston county will have more negative experiences. It also stands to reason that, like national media, local media will cover immigration mostly as a negative Latino threat. However, the literature does not predict how salient media coverage will make immigration, given the low Latino population in the district and distance from the southern border, but significant use of Latino labor in the declining agricultural industry. Most unclear are the predictions regarding public opinion of immigration. On the one hand, the Latino population is low–on the other, it is increasing in a Republican-leaning district, implying there might be a backlash according to Wong’s analysis. The district also complicates the “contact hypothesis,” which would posit that the district has negative attitudes towards immigration since the population is increasing. But if that hypothesis is true, we would expect that the most anti-immigrant districts and cities are the ones with the fastest growing Latino populations. However, Andersen’s 2008 analysis of Lansing already shows this is not the case, and Wong’s study implies that counties with the least Latinos and immigrants will support more restrictive policies. These contradictions predict that district 8 may be highly politically polarized on immigration, and perhaps public opinion will be especially subject to influence by media and politicians.

This provides an opportunity to reconcile Abrajano & Hajnal’s state level analysis with Hopkins’ and Newman’s national arguments about media salience. For District 8, I hypothesize that white backlash occurs in counties like Livingston when media and politicians portray immigration as threat, and white residents use those portrayals to contextualize the increasing Latino and immigrant populations they observe in neighboring counties. But those neighboring counties, with lower % white populations, where non-immigrants directly encounter immigrants and their descendants become involved in politics, likely support more accepting policies.

To test this hypothesis, we will examine the voting records of different counties and cities within District 8. This will allow us to roughly measure public opinion on immigration, based on the policies advanced by different political representatives. At the very least, it will show what kinds of immigration policies non-immigrant voters found “acceptable.” In order to “control” (loosely) for the power of party affiliation or other factors in voting, we will supplement this analysis with interviews of non-immigrant voters. These voters will come from Lansing, East Lansing, Okemos, and Mason. These Ingham county towns cover a full demographic cross-section reflecting the range in the district as a whole. These interviews will allow a non-representative, but important, qualitative analysis of voters’ opinions on immigrants and immigration. Do voters in Lansing consider the issue of immigration differently than those in Mason? When they articulate their views, do they discuss a “Latino threat?” How will Latinos, who are not immigrants themselves, discuss the issue? How will other minority populations perceive the issue? Finally, these interviews will be compared to public opinion polls if they are available at the city level.

Maya Aronoff-Michigan District 8

March 8, 2019 / Maya Aronoff / 0 Comments

Assignment 1 District 8 Assignment 1 District

Elissa Slotkin is the new House Representative for Michigan’s 8th District, which encompasses parts of the capital city Lansing, Michigan State University, suburbs like East Lansing and Okemos, and rural areas including Livingston and Oakland counties. Slotkin was raised on a Michigan farm before serving multiple tours as a Pentagon negotiator in Iraq, working for the CIA, and advising both President Bush and President Obama on matters of national security. She is currently serving her first term after defeating incumbent Mike Bishop in a narrow race in 2018, taking 50.6% of the vote compared to her opponent’s 46.8%.

Slotkin is the first Democratic representative of the 8th District since the late 1990s, although the district has vacillated in its support for Democrats and Republicans during Presidential races. The district has a median household income of around $71,702, with about 11% of people below the poverty line and 8% making more than $200,000 a year, which places it roughly in the middle when compared to the wealth of other Michigan districts. The area is majority white (84%) and highly educated, with 95% of the adult population having a high school diploma or higher. The district’s highly educated, mostly white population, spread across cities, suburbs, a major university, and rural areas may be factors in its right-leaning, centrist policy preferences over time. However, dissatisfaction with Trump and Bishop’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act may have been a contributing factor to Slotkin’s victory. Slotkin focused her campaign primarily on health care and health concerns, the economy, clean water, and veterans issues. Slotkin’s background and personality may also have contributed to her appeal. As a mom with personal experience with the broken health care system, a veteran who served in Iraq, a national security professional who served for both Democrats and Republicans, and a personable Michigan native who made a point of speaking to hundreds of constituents about their concerns, Slotkin likely came across as someone reasonable capable of bringing people together.

Existing literature has illustrated important correlations between the demographics of a district, the type of representative the district has, and the relative permissiveness of the immigration policy those representatives support. The strongest correlation exists between the party-aligned voting rates in a district, and the types of policies representatives support. In general, higher percentages of Republican voters in a district correlate with more restrictive immigration policies (Ramakrishnan et al. 2010; Wong 2012; Casellas and Leal 2013). Research has suggested some correlations between the demographic makeup of districts and immigration policy as well. For example, districts with a higher percentage of foreign born population tend to have somewhat more accepting policies, and districts with a higher percentage of Latinos tend to have more accepting policies (Wong 2014). However, demographic factors are contextualized by party preferences–for example, research has indicated that when the percentage of Latinos in a Republican district has recently grown, it correlates to more restrictive policies. Finally, the party of the representative plays a significant role in predicting immigration policy, with Republican representatives strongly tending to support more restrictive policies than Democratic representatives (Wong 2014; Wong 2017; Casellas and Leal 2013). Recent research by Professor Valenzuela also indicates a relationship between the representative’s party, the percentage of their party in their district, and support for the January 2019 vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security in order to re-open the government. Valenzuela found that first term representatives, and Democratic representatives in polarized districts, were both likely to vote to fund the DHS.

These findings have mixed implications for predicting Slotkin’s future stance on immigration policy. On the one hand, District 8 has a low percentage of foreign born and Latino populations (around 8% and 5%, lower than the national average), which might indicate more restrictive policies because there are fewer foreign-born populations to advocate for permissive immigration policies. However, a lower percentage of Latinos in the right-leaning area also does not predict the kinds of backlash effects described by Wong. The Republican-leaning district also implies that restrictive policies are likely, but the highly polarized nature of the district indicates that policies–not just on immigration–are likely to be more in the political center, because the representative must avoid alienating either side to maintain support. The fact that Slotkin is a new representative, and a Democrat leading a polarized district both indicate that she likely voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security in 2019, and her status as a Democratic representative makes permissive immigration policies more likely overall. The mixed implications of Slotkin’s identity and district makeup make it likely that she will support slightly restrictive, but not extreme immigration policies–but the literature does not predict whether or not she will focus on immigration policy at all.

In fact, Slotkin has not focused on immigration policy, either in her campaign or in her time in office so far. Although Slotkin did vote to fund DHS, as Valenzuela’s analysis would suggest, this was the only immigration-related legislation she has voted on. Instead, Slotkin has consistently supported Democratic legislation on economic, environmental, and other social issues, and co-sponsored bipartisan gun control legislation. This is consistent with the priorities she articulated during her campaign. Her campaign website never mentioned immigration, instead focusing on issues like health care and the opioid epidemic, and her Congressional website doesn’t mention the issue either. During her campaign she never tweeted about immigration, and since taking office has only tweeted six times–mainly focusing on the need to end the shutdown for the sake of federal workers’ jobs. In interviews, Slotkin has articulated increased border security in the form of agents and technology, opposed the border wall, emphasized the need for immigration for Michigan’s agricultural sector, and supported a path to citizenship for DACA kids and the right to seek asylum. Slotkin argues her national security background and experience as a negotiator will enable her to reach bipartisan compromise on immigration in the future. Slotkin avoiding immigration policy makes sense, since the low foreign born and Latino population she represents may not see immigration policy as a priority, or an issue the polarized district can agree on.