This week we’ve explored the relationship between the public and its representation at the state level. One noteworthy trend is that the partisan alignment of a district predicts votes of its congressperson (Casellas and Leal, 2013). Wong also found, in analysis of interior enforcement bills similar to the IIRIRA’s 287(g) provision, that local Latino and Asian population correlate with decreased support for restrictionist policies (2014). Both findings fit into an overarching message of the week: that the primary goal of representatives is re-election.

Keeping in mind these findings, it would be interesting to examine election and representation dynamics in a highly divided, significantly Hispanic district, where population-based cues are unclear. This article, written about former Congressman Jeff Denham (R) just months before the 2018 elections, highlights some of the difficulties of governing in such a district, and specifically illustrates Denham’s actions on immigration. Denham’s locality (with no clear partisan advantage, and a 40% Hispanic population) made representation difficult, which may have contributed to his centrist position on immigration. In the months before the election, Denham made headlines when he attempted to force the House to vote on several immigration bills via a discharge petition, a move that drew ire from his own party. The motion failed, and the subsequent immigration bill that Denham helped craft stalled. At home, Denham’s opponent accused him of failing his constituents and only voting the party line. This type of response, and Denham’s subsequent electoral loss, may represent yet another reason for continued immigration gridlock.

Discussion question: The new congressman from CA-10, Josh Harder (D), won with 52.3% of the vote. Why might he have an easier or harder time keeping his constituents happy? How might increasing polarization or shifting demographics have portended Denham’s defeat?

Article Citation: CNN, Lauren Fox. “Immigration Debate Looms Large in California Republican’s Re-Election Bid.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/politics/immigration-california-republicans-jeff-denham/index.html (February 25, 2019).

This week we discuss the consequences of restrictive immigration policy in the United States. Wong (2014) focuses policies after HR 4437 can be explained by the partisan divide on immigration issues and the factors related to that and Massey (2019) focuses on how policy after HR 4437 actually affected illegal immigration. Massey proves that a restrictive immigration policy actually increased the undocumented population as well increase the cost (for immigrants to come in safely and for the nation to sustain the policy) and increase the number of deaths at the border. The news article on Forbes is more connected to Massey’s argument. This article discusses how a wall on the Mexican border would actually benefit drug cartels. Drug cartels are known for loaning their smuggling tunnels to smuggle in people as well and a wall would actually raise the cost of people smuggling and make it a more lucrative business. In general, a wall would continue to be as ineffective as Massey describes restrictive immigration policy has been so far. This appears to not be a solution to an ineffective policy but just contributing to it even more.

Discussion Question

1. If restrictive immigration policy is ineffective, what could be some effects of less restrictive immigration policy and what would that type of policy look like?

Anderson, Stuart. “A Wall And Trump Immigration Policies Benefit Drug Cartels.” Forbes,

Forbes Magazine, 7 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/02/07/a-

wall-and-trump-immigration-policies-benefit-drug-cartels/#aef51e37888b.