MCs and their records – Immigration Politics, Policymaking in the U.S.

Category: MCs and their records (page 1 of 3)

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas-2nd): Impact of Changing Demographics

April 14, 2019 / Taylor Kass / 0 Comments

Demographics have changed a fair amount in Texas’s 2nd District. It is important to note, however, that congressional redistricting occurred in 2012 that eliminated parts of southeast Texas, which included larger African American and white populations, and added neighborhoods in Houston heavily populated by Latinos. These new geographic boundaries may influence the demographic changes noted. From 2007 to 2017, the Latino population increased from 19.7% to 32.1%, meaning that articles discussing how changing Latino demographics impacts local voting patterns will be relevant. The district also has a high and rising foreign-born population (21.7% in 2017, compared with 11.3% in 2007), as well as a high and rising proportion of Latinos who are immigrants (40.5% of all Latinos in 2017, compared with 37.7% in 2007), making articles discussing immigration policy and high volumes of immigrants in an area relevant to this presentation. Moreover, the high proportion of Latinos who are immigrants means this presentation will distinguish between articles discussing attitudes possessed by/toward this group of Latinos in particular. While the Asian population grew (a change from 3.2% in 2007 to 7.7% in 2017), the small overall size of Asians in the district meaning articles discussing the impact of a large Asian population will not hold much significance to this presentation. Finally, the non-Hispanic white population decrease from 55.9% in 2007 to 45.2% in 2017, meaning that articles discussing a declining white population in the context of rising minority populations (in this case, largely Latinos) will be relevant to the following discussion.

The scholarly theories in this presentation were selected based on their relevance to the 2nd District. De Graauw’s article was discussed due to the district containing western parts of Houston, America’s 4th largest city. Due to Houston’s population and its proximity to the southern border, it will likely be a “gateway city” for immigrants, meaning that many immigrant nonprofits will likely headquarters themselves there and advocate for immigrant integration into local politics and society. Branton and Dunaway’s piece was featured due to the rising Latino population in the district and to see how these changing demographics would change media incentives. A rising, but small Latino population would incentivize more coverage of immigration, as the issue would be of interest to the majority white population. However, after a certain threshold (around 18-27% Latino), media organizations view Latinos as potential consumers of media and decrease immigration coverage to not dissuade Latino viewers. Abrajano and Hajnal’s piece was included because of the large Latino population and large, but declining white population in the 2nd District. This theory predicts whites would view the large Latino population as a potential threat to white communities via economic competition, rising crime, competition for social services, and threats to white political power. Finally, Abrajano and Singh’s article was included due to the large number of foreign-born Latinos in the district. This theory predicts that native-born Latinos are more likely to take mainstream policy positions, causing them to view illegal immigration more negatively than immigrant Latinos who may be undocumented themselves or more closely relate to a shared immigrant experience with undocumented immigrants.

The district containing parts of Houston and possessing an immigrant population larger than the national average (21.7% vs. 13.7 nationally in 2017) predicts that immigrant nonprofits will be very active in the district and play a key role integrating immigrants into local politics (spreading awareness of local political issues, explaining how to register to vote, etc.). Since the Latino population is higher than the 18-27% threshold established by Branton and Dunaway (32.1% in 2017), newspapers in the 2nd District will contain less stories about immigration relative to areas with a Latino population slightly below the aforementioned threshold. Moreover, the high Latino population would also predict that whites in the 2nd District would view immigration as a top concern. The large foreign-born Latino population in the 2nd District (40.5% vs. 33.5% nationally in 2017) would predict that Latinos in the district would likely view illegal immigration as an economic benefit compared to Latinos in other districts.

The prediction chosen to be tested is that since the 2nd District’s Latino population (32.1%) is larger than Branton and Dunaway’s 18-27% threshold, local newspapers will cover immigration stories less than areas with a Latino at or slightly below this threshold. This test will be conducted by first comparing a Houston-area newspaper to a newspaper in a nearby Texas market that has a Latino population at or below the threshold. Keeping the second market in Texas allows us to control for differences in state laws/rhetoric by politicians about immigration. Despite the government shutdown starting December 22nd, 2018, this study will start its analysis on December 11th, 2018 because of a high-profile argument between President Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that debated the amount of money appropriated to border security and likely started a spike in media coverage of immigration. This analysis will continue until January 25th, 2019, when the shutdown concluded, and include terms associated with the border security debate that caused the shutdown (“wall,” “shutdown,” “illegal immigration,” etc.). Moreover, positive aspects of immigration (reports of immigrants benefiting the country), neutral aspects (reports that do not declare a position) and negative aspects (crime stories, reports of economic competition with natives, social service use by undocumented immigrants, etc.) will be coded for in analysis of articles to see if a difference emerges between the two newspapers in tone. To assess the volume of stories, this analysis will observe the number of articles discussing immigration or the shutdown per day compared to the total number of articles published per day by each newspaper. Using proportions will be a better comparison because newspapers in Houston have a larger audience and likely more journalistic resources to print more stories than other areas of Texas.

NJ-10: Donald Payne Jr.

March 30, 2019 / Justin Hinson / 0 Comments

Link to full presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rqiSn0HPYLn9JNr3HHCwDfhuVur5xX8pzL3EDXvSZXA/edit?usp=sharing

This slide outlines the 2008-2018 election results for New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District. This features Donald M. Payne, who was the member of Congress from 1989 until he passed away in 2012, and his son Donald Payne Jr. who became his successor in 2012. In 2008 and 2010, Payne won the Congressional District race with 98.9% and 85.2% of the vote, respectively. From 2012 to 2018, Donald Payne Jr. won the election consistently receiving between 85% and 87% of the vote, a similar margin of victory to that of his father in 2010. This congressional district has historically been a predominantly blue region in New Jersey, and the election results illustrate landslide victories from both Payne and Payne Jr. that demonstrate the overwhelming Democratic support. This statistic can be reinforced by the fact that this Congressional District also has a majority Black/African-American population of over 50%, and African-Americans in general have been closely linked to the Democratic party.

Slide 2 examines research discussing the effects of electorate context and district population demographics on voting towards certain types of immigration policies. In their study titled, “Partisanship or Population? House and Senate immigration votes in the 109th and 110th Congresses”, Jason Casellas and David Leal analyze the presence of certain causal mechanisms that may explain voting patterns on immigration policies. Casellas and Leal examined congressional voting on a variety of immigration bills, including restrictive and comprehensive bills. While competition between African-Americans and Latinos is theorized as a factor that can influence immigration-related policymaking, the authors concluded that there was no real evidence of economic competition existing between African-Americans and Latino, and it had no significant impact on voting decisions for immigration policy (Casellas, 2013).

As a continuation from slide 2, this slide discusses the significance of Casellas’ study with regards to New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District. With a racial makeup of 52.7% of the population being African-American and 17.6% being Hispanic, this Congressional District can be examined as an example of the theory suggesting competition and tension between these two racial groups. However, following the Casellas study it can be predicted that these demographic makeup will not have an influence on whether immigration policy voting will be more restrictive or more comprehensive. I think that while the Casellas and Leal study provides evidence for the insignificance of certain demographic factors like racial competition, I think that it is worth examining the potential cultural tension that might exist in the specific region of New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District, which includes major cities such as Newark and Orange. This district has a 30% foreign-born population, half of which come from Latin America. With a strong Latino immigrant presence existing alongside a strong native African-American presence, the measure of how much influence these possible tensions might have can be put into question.

The last slide examines Donald Payne Jr.’s records of bill sponsorship and cosponsorship, in addition to his voting record on bills. While Payne Jr. has either sponsored or cosponsored 1,369 bills, only 34 of these bills were related to immigration. Payne has additionally voted on 2 immigration-related policies, voting in support of more funding directly tied to the Department of Homeland Security, of which he is a House committee member. Payne Jr.’s website illustrates the types of policies and issues he focuses on, and immigration not being an issue highlighted on his website supports how it isn’t viewed as a priority issue in the NJ-10 Congressional District, despite a higher foreign-born population compared to the New Jersey average. Payne Jr.’s tweet history also correlates with patterns of quietness regarding immigration, and only 3 of his 74 tweets since January include any mention of immigration or immigration-related issues.

CT-4: Jim Himes (D)

March 27, 2019 / Henry Parkhurst / 0 Comments

Himes announced his candidacy on April 19, 2007, quickly receiving endorsements from several political action committees. His campaign was targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) as a potential flip; indeed, he beat Republican incumbent Christopher Shays by a slim margin of 4 percentage points and has held the seat since. The figure in slide 1 shows vote counts by party in every election subsequent for this seat. Two patterns emerge that are consistent with broader literature. First, turnout was higher in presidential election years. Second, as a Democrat, Himes faced tighter races in Obama’s midterm years (2010 and 2014); we see tighter spreads in those years. (The President’s party typically underperforms in midterms.)

This slide cites literature that we have reviewed in class, mostly focusing on understanding systematic relationships between district-level characteristics and representatives’ propensity to vote for restrictive or permissive immigration policies. Multivariate analyses from Tom Wong and others find consistent patterns; members’ political party can predict these outcomes better than any other variable. However, party is downstream of properties of the district, and none of these studies directly measured constituents’ opinions on immigration. We might wonder then, whether it is in fact party, or instead these unobserved upstream properties, that are truly causing more or less restrictive floor votes. For that reason, we especially care about individual cases when investigating this question. Demographic characteristics like percentage of Hispanics or percent foreign-born are found to be significant, but with very weak point estimates, in Wong’s regressions (2014). This suggests these factors might retain salience in individual cases.

CT-4’s characteristics predict Himes to be quite liberal on immigration. The district is suburban and generally well-educated. It has a higher proportion of registered Democrats and a higher median income than the national average. Himes is nonetheless relatively conservative among House Democrats. His DW-NOMINATE score is -0.241, making him more liberal than 54% of the House, and more conservative than 84% of House Democrats. (source: Voteview) The relative wealth of CT-4 is perhaps the best explainer for this score; as former chair of the New Democrat Coalition, Himes has made clear his commitment to “pro-growth” policies including lower taxes. This neoliberal outlook would presume a preference for more open immigration policies, too.

Himes is active on Twitter, but not particularly so with respect to immigration. He has mostly criticized the President’s border wall proposal, arguing that it is ineffectual. On his website, he expresses a commitment to border security, along with a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants “in order to ensure that everyone pays their full and fair share of taxes.” Himes is not a legislative leader on the issue of immigration, as you can see in the top right hand corner of slide 4; his only sponsored bill was defeated in 2010. He has only broken with House Democrats a couple times on immigration votes: once in 2012 re: skilled immigration, and once in 2018 on a symbolic resolution about the voting enfranchisement.

Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07)

March 26, 2019 / Arman Badrei / 0 Comments

Link to slides

Slide 1:

Republican Rep. John Culberson held the seat of TX-07 for 16 years, since 2000, winning by rather large margins up until 2016. In 2018, he lost his seat to the challenger from the Democratic Party, Lizzie Fletcher, by 5% or roughly 12,000 votes. Fletcher is currently serving her first-term in the 115^th Congress.

Slide 2:

Wong (2017) argues that in constituencies with high foreign born populations, policymakers—both Republicans and Democrats—are less likely to support restrictive immigration policy. Casellas and Leal (2013) show that large Latino populations imply less support by policymakers for restrictive proposals, however partisanship is a more important factor in deciding whether a policymaker will vote for measures. Wong (2014) claims that as the percentage of Latinos and Asians in states increases, the probability of voting “yes” for interior enforcement decreases.

Slide 3:

This research has some direct, visible effects on the TX-07 district, however recent changes in party control of the district make some findings difficult to interpret. 28.84% of the population is foreign born in the district, 30.5% is Latino, and 10.7% is Asian, however the district still has restrictive immigration policy. Immigrant organizations have urged an increase in immigrant legal services, the use of ID cards, language access for non-English speakers, stopping 287(g), and less restrictive immigration policies in general (de Graauw, Gleeson, Bada 2019).

Slide 4:

In terms of her congressional record, Rep. Fletcher’s voted “yea” on H.J. Res. 31 which provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security and included $12.2 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and $7.5 billion for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Feb. 14, 2019. She also cosponsored H. J. Res. 46 which repealed Trump’s emergency national declaration and passed on Feb. 26, 2019. She has cosponsored 3 bills and 1 (H.J. Res 46) was immigration-related; to say that 33% of bills she’s cosponsored have been immigration-related is a bit deceiving though, given the small sample size. Fletcher’s website is incredibly bare: under the category of “Other Issues” in which users would ideally be able to view her stances, for each of the nine issues, there is no information, only the message “More coming soon!” In 2019, on Twitter, Fletcher was vocal in January and February about the government shutdown and attacks with a standard, partisan tone from a Democrat. She tweeted 9 times about immigration (including one tweet of a picture of a border wall, one linking to a news article about wall funding, and one with the buzzword “borders“) out of 121 overall tweets within the January 1 to March 1 time period; 7.4% of Fletcher’s tweets were about immigration.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-2)

March 25, 2019 / Taylor Kass / 0 Comments

Up to 2010, then-Congressman Ted Poe (R- Texas 2nd) easily won elections with over 85% of the vote, with the district being so Republican that Democrats did not even promote a candidate. In 2011, Texas’s 2nd District was redrawn, including less rural areas and concentrating more in the heavily populated and more Latino Houston suburbs. While Poe still won reelection from 2012 to 2016 easily, the margins grew smaller every year, with Poe taking only 60% of the vote in 2016 and Democrats finding candidates who could reach over 30% of the vote. In 2018, with a Democratic wave on the rise and Democrats hoping to capitalize on the large foreign-born/Latino population in the district, the race was very close. Dan Crenshaw managed to win the race, but by less than 8 percentage points, with commentators largely contributing his victory to a Saturday Night Live appearance where he received an apology after a joke was made about his eyepatch on the show (Crenshaw received the wound as a result of combat action).

There are several political theories relevant to Texas’s 2nd District. The first, from Professor Tom Wong, predicted that areas with larger total foreign-born populations would have representatives supportive of less restrictionist immigration policies for a few reasons: Naturalized American citizens would likely be biased toward being less restrictive due to their personal experiences being immigrants. Green-card holders, who would become citizens in a few years, would contribute to a larger share of the voting base in future elections and would also be more likely to support less restrictive policies because of their personal immigration experiences. Finally, a large total foreign-born population may include many undocumented immigrants who would protest restrictionist policies and pressure family members with citizenship to vote for candidates that are against these restrictionist policies. The second theory is that a higher naturalized citizen population will lead to more support for less restrictionist policies for the same reasons cited earlier (personal immigration experiences and potential undocumented family members). The final theory is from Professors Tom Wong and Karthick Ramakrishnan, which that areas with more Republicans are more likely to support restrictionist immigration ordinances because of strong local opposition to illegal immigration or policy entrepreneurs framing illegal immigration as one of the region’s largest problems.

Texas’s 2nd District has a much higher foreign-born proportion of the population than the country as a whole (21.4% vs. 13.7% nationally). This would suggest that the district’s representatives would be less restrictionist. The district also has a higher proportion of naturalized citizens than the nation as a whole (8.6% vs. 6.2% nationally), which would also predict higher support for less restrictionist immigration policies. The preceding statistics were calculated from 2017 US Census data, making it recent enough to accurately draw inferences from. The final point regarding Republican areas being more likely to support restrictionist ordinances was tested using data from the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which measures a congressional district’s partisan leanings compared to the country as a whole. In contrast to the previous two hypotheses, the 11-point advantage given to Republicans indicates the representative will be slightly more likely to support restrictionist immigration policies.

Congressman Ted Poe definitely fit the conservative end of the political spectrum, though he was not one of the leaders of restrictionist policies in the House of Representatives. According to NumbersUSA, a think-tank that advocates for lower levels of both legal and illegal immigration, Congressman Poe received an 88% rating, indicating high support for restrictionist policies. However, immigration was not one of his most important issues in Congress, as only 11% of the bills he sponsored focused on immigration. Congressman Dan Crenshaw, however, has made his support for restrictionist immigration policies the forefront of his campaign, which contrasts the first two hypotheses made by Professor Wong regarding high foreign-born populations and naturalized citizen populations making members support less restrictive policies. Out of 12 videos on his congressional website, 6 focused on immigration and support for restrictionist immigration policies (i.e. support for President Trump’s proposed wall and increased spending for Border Patrol). Additionally, out of 105 tweets made by Congressman Crenshaw from January 1st, 2019 to March 1st, 2019, 49 discussed immigration (47% of total tweets). Moreover, of these 49 immigration tweets, 45 were in support of restrictionist policies (94%). These points prove that immigration has become an important issue in Texas’s 2nd District and support for restrictionist policies high among its current congressman.

Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ 12)

March 10, 2019 / Valeria Torres-Olivares / 0 Comments

Slide 1

Slide 1 shows how there has been a strong Democratic presence in NJ 12 for a number of years. For the history of the district, there has always been a Democratic Representative in office, starting out with Rush D. Holt Jr, serving from 2000 to 2014. He was then succeeded by the current Rep, Bonnie Watson Coleman, who has served from 2014 until now. As you can see, on the right-hand side there is data from the US Census Bureau (2010) that details population, gender, race, ethnicity, unemployment, median household income, high school graduation rate, and college graduation rate.

Slide 2

On this slide you can find existing research on what impacts immigration policy. This is used on this slide to make predictions on what the current Rep, Bonnie Watson Coleman (BWC), will decide upon, whether that be a restrictive or accepting immigration policy. According to the research and readings that were given to us in the class, the higher the population of Latinx residents, the more likely that there will be a immigrant friendly policy; however, if the Latinx population rises quickly in a short amount of time, then Republican Reps will be more likely to vote for restrictive immigration policies (Wong 2014). According to Ramakrishnan and Wong (2010), cities with protests are eight times more likely to have pro-immigrant legislation. When looking at who is likely to fund the DHS, Democratic Representatives in a polarized district likely to vote towards funding the DHS (Valenzuela 2019). It also happens to be a well-known fact that Republican Reps are more likely to vote on restrictive immigration policies, while the opposite is true for Democrats (Wong 2014, Wong 2017, Casellas and Leal 2013).

Slide 3

According to all of the research presented on the previous slide, if BWC had to choose between a restrictive or accepting immigration policy, she would probably go with an accepting policy. When looking at protests, there are many protests within cities of District 12, particularly in Trenton and Princeton, indicating that the district would have an accepting policy on immigration. Another reason to believe that BWC would be for accepting immigrant policies is the fact that BWC is not a Representative in a polarized district, in addition to this, she is also serving in a district that happens to be historically Democratic. Since BWC is serving her third term as a Representative of District 12, she would likely not be pushed towards a restrictive policy since she has no history of doing so in the past.

Slide 4

When looking at BWC’s tweets containing the keywords: “Immigration,” “Immigrant,” “Border,” “Wall,” and “Undocumented,” you find that roughly around 13% of her tweets are on immigration from January 1^st, to March 1^stof this year. While she does have several tweets on the topic of immigration, this doesn’t translate to her voting record. From what I found, the hasn’t ever sponsored a bill on immigration; however, this does not necessarily mean she has voted against one, it is just likely that due to NJ’s distance from the border, there has been no need to pass a bill on immigration. Aside from this, her tweets do indicate that she hastaken a public stance on being against the wall since she considers the border situation to be a humanitarian crisis, anti-trump, condemns the govt. shutdown, and is for DACA. When looking at her history of bill sponsorship, she has mostly sponsored bills revolving taxation (25%), Crime and Law Enforcement (22%), and Government Operations and Politics (19%). If one looks on her website, one can find that out of twelve issues listed, immigration is listed as the 5^thissue; however, when looking at her campaign website, one wont find Immigration listed as an important issue for her. On her official website, one can find quotes from her about how she believes in how DACA or an equivalent should be made permanent, and how the proposed wall is nothing more than a symbol of hate that she is against for many reasons.

Campaign Website: https://www.bonnieforcongress.com

Govt. Website (BWC): https://watsoncoleman.house.gov

Arizona-4: Assignment 1

March 8, 2019 / Rebekah Ninan / 0 Comments

Link to Slides

Slide 1:

This slide shows the shift in the district. Republican Paul Gosar has been the representative for this district since 2013. Prior to that, he served as the representative for Arizona District 1, where he ran as a tea party candidate. Prior to Gosar the district was served by Ed Pastor, the first Mexican American to represent Arizona. Pastor was a strong democrat who served the district from 2003-2013, winning with over 60% of the vote in each election. However, after the 2010 census, there was significant redistricting. The old district 4 essentially became district 7, and the new district 4 encompassed mostly Western Arizona. This district is now the most rural and the most republican district in Arizona. This district is also 19% Hispanic and 8% foreign born with a lower income than the national average.

Slide 2:
This slide summarizes the relevant literature of how local electorate context and the characteristics of a congressional member affects the support of a district’s representative for restrictive immigration policies. Two key factors: partisanship and demographics emerge as elements in the type of legislation that the representative ultimately supports. Republican representatives are more likely to support restrictive legislation than democrats, and those representing more Republican districts are also more likely to support restrictive legislation (Wong 2014; Casillas and Leal 2013). Casillas and Leal argue this is the only consistent factor. Additionally demographics matter. When a district has a higher proportion of foreign born individuals, Wong (2017) finds that the representative is less likely to vote for restrictive immigration policy. Additionally, an increased Latino population is associated with votes for less restrictive immigration policy (Wong 2014). However, when the Hispanic population is rapidly increasing in a republican district, this leads to more restrictive immigration policy (Ramakrishnan and Wong 2010.)

Slide 3:
This slide outlines based on the literature above, what might we expect the views of the representative of Arizona’s fourth congressional district to be on immigration. There are a few key findings. First, based on partisanship both of the representative and the district, since Paul Gosar is a Republican and the district leans heavily Republican, we would expect Gosar to support restrictive immigration policy. Only eight percent of the district is foreign born, so we would also anticipate more restrictive views from the district’s representative on immigration policy. The district is slightly more Hispanic than the national average (19.2% in AZ4 versus 17% nationally), so we would initially expect more moderate or permissive views on immigration policy. However, when we keep in mind that the Hispanic population is growing in an overwhelmingly Republican district, it follows that the representative for the district would vote in favor of restrictive immigration policy.

Slide 4:

This slide shows that not only does Paul Gosar support restrictive immigration as predicted, it is actually one of his central policy platforms. He has sponsored or co-sponsored 27 bills on the topics of immigrants and “aliens”, all of which seek to limit their presence in the country, harshen penalties, and limit their access to US resources. Almost half of his twitter use is about immigration, making references to crime and supporting the building of a wall. Immigration is also listed as one of the top three “priorities” that Gosar has on his website. These views are highly consistent with the current views of the Republican party. Additionally, Gosar’s support of these issues rely highly on language invoking national security and the interests of Arizonan’s who live near the border, implying it could be a highly salient issue for his constituency. It is unclear how these views impact his support among Hispanic voters in the district, but regardless, Gosar won every country in his district.

Joseph D. Morelle (NY-25)

March 8, 2019 / Michael Watson / 0 Comments

Slide 1: Joseph D. Morelle (Democrat) serves as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 25th congressional district. This region is highly interesting in that it underwent a turnover from being consistently Republican within the past two decades. Morelle is the latest Democratic representative and his 17.2 point victory demonstrates the decreasing popularity of the Republican party with constituents. That aside, elections are typically close in NY-25 given the strong presence of both parties.

Slide 2: The literature provides insights into predicting voting behavior on the issue of immigration. Wong (2017) discusses median voter theorem, which posits that small foreign-born populations are correlated with increased support for restrictive policies on immigration. Furthermore, Wong (2014) contends that support for strict interior enforcement decreases as the Latino population rises. Casella & Leals (2013) support the notion that Republicans are more likely to support restriction. It is important to note that the aforementioned principle is widely held and not unique to Casella & Leals.

Slide 3: Based on these research findings, it is predicted that Joseph Morelle (D.) will support permissive immigration policies. Although the foreign-born and Hispanic populations are low, partisanship is expected to be the most influential factor. As a Democrat, it is likely that Morelle will take a pro-immigration posture. Given the conflict in the predicted outcome between these factors of demographics and party, will Morelle’s political expressions on immigration seem suppressed?

Slide 4: After investigating Morelle’s online platforms, it is clear that his positions on immigration are not particularly important to his political agenda. Tweet analysis yielded no results with the specified keywords (“immigration, ” “immigrant,” etc.) and his official congressional website did not include immigration on the list of relevant issues. The campaign website was found to be the exception to this: Morelle claims to be committed to “support[ing] the Dream Act… [and] fight[ing] to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Despite this, Morelle only has a single key vote on immigration bills (votesmart.org): to co-sponsor the New York DREAM Fund commission.

Sheila Jackson Lee (D – TX18)

March 8, 2019 / Tori Gorton / 0 Comments

Link to slides

Slide 1: Since Sheila Jackson Lee’s election to office in 1994, she has won every election for TX-18’s representative seat. In the most recent elections (2008-present), Lee has won with a significant margin (between 42.9 and 57.0 points) over the Republican candidate. This suggests that TX-18 is a consistent Democratic and – coupling this with its high minority and immigrant population as well as its urban focus of Houston – progressive district.

Slide 2: Extant research has discovered many factors that are significantly related to representative’s votes in favour of restrictive/permissive immigration policy. While a high unemployment rate, being in the South, and having a Republican representative is correlated with supporting restrictive legislation, the following characteristics are associated with representative support for permissive policy: immigration-related protests in the area, recent influx of immigrants, a large share of agricultural jobs in the district, a large population, and a non-White representative. The employment factors imply that constituents’ job threat is a motivator for representatives supporting restrictive policy while agriculture businesses’ concerns about their immigrant day labourers / cheap labour push representatives to support permissive immigration policy. The physical presence of new immigrants and their political presence in protests (along with their allies) also push representatives to supporting permissive policy to protect and lift up their constituents. Further, the characteristics of the representative are understandably influential over their stances; namely, being a non-White representative is correlated with support for permissive policy (since non-Whites are likely to be more sympathetic/supportive of immigrants) while being a Republican (a de facto conservative party) is correlated with support for restrictive policy. Finally, the geographic context of the district plays a role too: the historically conservative and anti-minority South is predictably indicative of restrictive policy support.

Slide 3: Looking at the characteristics of TX-18 in relation to the determinants discussed in the previous slide, we can see that it is likely that Sheila Jackson Lee will be a supporter of permissive policy and an opponent of restrictive policy. Despite Houston being in a Southern state with no agriculture industry and relatively high unemployment, the determining factors on the other side of the story more strongly indicate the likely support of Lee for pro-immigrant policy. Firstly, as a liberal Democrat, she is of an ideology that is more welcoming of immigrants and, as a non-White representative she is more likely to push back against the ‘White America’ rationale that often pervades restrictionist thought. Secondly, the political protests that took place in Houston last year and in 2006 (as part of a national movement in response to HR 4437), along with the recency of a lot of the immigration into the district, is indicative of the constituent population’s needs and wishes that would drive Lee’s permissive policy support. The weighing up of both sides leads me to believe that Lee is more likely to support permissive policy than restrictive.

Slide 4: On Sheila Jackson Lee’s website, she dedicates one page to the issue of immigration. On this page, which represents 1 of 11 pages for miscellaneous issues and 6.4% of their overall substantive content, Lee describes her stance and actions concerned with immigration; namely, how she desires to protect Dreamers, find a path to naturalization for the existing undocumented immigrants in the county, protect families at the border, diversify the incoming immigrants, and prevent terrorists from entering the country. Regarding her actions on the matter, her press releases shed light on her work against the family separation occurring at the Southern border, her condemnation of Trump’s tweets and the GOP’s xenophobic remarks, her work towards comprehensive reform, and her efforts to secure temporary protected status for international victims of civil war and natural disasters. Despite this platform, her website contains no resources for immigrants and her campaign website contains no mention of immigration whatsoever. On Lee’s Twitter she is a frequent poster of pro-immigrant content and often posts anti-Trump messages which opposes his actions on immigration policy; beyond her own tweets, she retweets other representatives and pages that share messages of a similar nature. Lee’s bill-sponsorship record is indicative of her website and Twitter: they reflect efforts of comprehensive reform, anti-border wall, and national security. This is all demonstrative of the research findings from earlier slides.

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.