Arman Badrei and Rohan Shah
In the 6th congressional district of New Jersey (NJ-06), Congressman Frank Pallone has represented his constituents since 1988, winning his elections in the last decade by large margins. The district, which covers Middlesex County and Monmouth County, has been a Democratic stronghold.
The 7th congressional district of Texas (TX-07) was represented by Representative John Culberson of the Republican Party for more than a decade. In the 2018 midterm elections, Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher turned TX-07 blue.
Both NJ-06 and TX-07 are majority-minority districts as of 2017. Over a ten-year period since 2007, the white population decreased, while Latino and Asian populations increased in both districts. The white population decline was greater in TX-07 but the growth of the Latino and Asian populations were slightly greater in NJ-06. The foreign-born, or immigrant, populations expanded in both districts, with a 5.2 percentage point increase in NJ-06 compared to an 8 percentage point increase in TX-07.
We both used certain scholarly work as a framework and motive for analyzing certain factors and larger themes. In the examination of NJ-06, Chavez (2008) and Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) predicted that changes to the Asian population demographic neither caused the same negative reactions nor shifts in macropartisanship as that of changes in the Latino population. TX-07 proved to also be especially interesting under the lens of existing research. According to research by Hopkins (2015), public opinion in areas can change as a result of “sudden, destabilizing changes” in local demographics. On a related note, Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) assert that whites living in states with more Latinos will tend to counter that growth by supporting more restrictive policymaking and movement towards the Republican Party.
To determine the accuracy of overlaying such research on our districts, we both conducted qualitative interview studies. The research concerning NJ-06 focused on evaluating the differences in perception to immigration news coverages of Asians versus Latinos. In exploring that significant aim, the research examined exposure to local and national news, perceived fairness of such news in respect to immigration, opinions of ethnic groups, and the effects of immigration news media on political affiliation and views. Interviews were conducted with Asian, Hispanic, Asian-Indian, and Non-Hispanic white constituents in NJ-06.
Although the research on TX-07 had a media-centric angle, the study focused far more on the perception and effects of the growth of ethnic populations. Interviews were conducted with Christopher Harvey, the Legislative Assistant on Immigration for Rep. Fletcher, and Gislaine Williams, the Community Relations Director at The Alliance, a nonprofit that works with primarily refugees but also immigrants. Main topics of the interviews were the reception of immigrants, the effects of demographic changes, urban attitudes on immigration, and the political situation and attitudes of the district in general.
In comparing our results, we noted an intersection when evaluating the response to immigration politics in the media and demographic changes on the politics of each district. We included sample quotations that pertain to these categories.
In terms of media coverage, in NJ-06, interviewees held a fundamental distrust of both the local and national news media. Furthermore, media coverage of Asian immigration was seen as positive and advantageous for the American economy whereas that of the Latino population was believed to be negative and visceral. Significantly, the current immigration news coverage climate was determined to have a polarizing effect on personal political affiliation. In TX-07, both policymakers and nonprofit advocates understand the obvious influence of the media. Additionally, policymakers want to emphasize the danger of the dissemination of fake news. Now, in addition to being service providers for immigrant communities and entities for advocacy, it seems nonprofits are turning towards functioning as an instrument or facilitator in the media world too: Williams at The Alliance talked about how they “have also engaged media outlets because of that in trying to get the stories of local refugees in newspapers, in local news, local TV news, so that people are able to see refugees in a different light or are able to see a more comprehensive look into the community” and have led media training for refugee leaders to teach them how to write opinion pieces and press releases.
Both NJ-06 and TX-07 saw increases in the immigrant and Latino populations but our research indicates that this did not necessarily confer “white backlash” in respect to political affiliation. This is because the speed of such growth was rather constant, or perceived to be constant, and because President Trump’s politics played a more pivotal role than the issue of immigration which points to the rise in Democratic success since 2016. Polarization exists, but more so due to Trump rather than views on immigration specifically.
We recommend that our representatives, first and foremost, represent the views of all their constituents including citizens and non-citizens. However, we do understand the challenge in doing so. In TX-07, Harvey emphasized the difficulty in having polarity due to immigration and representing the views of a moderate district. Out of respect for the American electoral system, they should take a position that accommodates as many residents as possible. As the moderate nature of TX-07 demonstrates, simply representing based on the interests of political partisanship would ignore a large (or more specifically, half) of the electorate. Given the prevalence of immigration media coverage, representatives should actively demystify immigration policy decisions at the local and national levels to counter “fake news”, biases in the media, and transparency issues. As demonstrated with TX-07 and NJ-06, representatives should actively respond to demographic changes by having prescience about immigrant attitudes and promoting cross-cultural awareness to mitigate potential issues.
While the two districts researched both used interviews, they had slightly different research questions. NJ-6 research focused on media analysis (namely representation and perception of Asians and Latinos) whereas TX-7 research focused on growth of immigrant populations. However, the presenters tied their findings together well, with the main points being a) political actors and residents are both aware that media can change political views, and b) both groups are wary of fake news, with impacts on how they perceived news. One interesting observation the presenters made was that white backlash due to growing immigrant populations was negligible, because the rate of growth was constant. The presenters expressed their surprise at this finding but accepted it, whereas I would reject it: I would instead argue that their sample simply did not capture any extant backlash. The racial threat theory proposed by Abrajano and Hajnal suggests that the raw increase of immigrant population size and consequent competition for resources will still trigger negative attitudes from White residents, even if the rate of growth is constant (2015). The conflict between the presenters’ findings and this theory, I would assume, result from the fact that their conclusions are based on a limited interview study, rather than a public opinion analysis. On the presenters’ recommendations for representatives, I agree with the assertion that representatives should seek to demystify fake news. However, while I agree with the ideal of representatives trying to represent as many of their voters as possible, simply suggesting that they do so out of “respect for the electoral system” rings hollow. It is generally assumed that politicians act in whatever manner is most likely to win them re-election (Mayhew, 1974). Thus, any suggestion that the representatives of TX-7 and NJ-6 change their policies should warrant a greater electoral benefit in order to have any real traction.
This presentation compared the 6th district in NJ with the 7th district in Texas based on research from qualitative interviews—Rohan compared immigration attitudes between different racial groups and Arman examined the views of key immigration stakeholders. They found 3 key similarities between their districts: first, people recognize that media greatly influences their personal politics; second, people mistrust media and find it polarizing especially due to fake news; and third, media reactions are ethnicity-dependent. I agree with most of their findings, but I think they should have been clearer that these trends cannot be broadly generalized given the small sample sizes. I also think the mechanisms between the literature and findings could have been stronger—while the theories listed on the slides were related to their work the exact, the exact connections between the literature and their findings could have been more explicit. Overall, it was very interesting that they were able to find connections between regionally distinct districts and notice similar demographic changes in two very different parts of the country.
I believe there are two main arguments within your research, related first to media coverage and then to demographic changes in politics. First, there is a general idea that media coverage is extremely important and influential. In NJ-06, there were strong effects of the media on people’s personal politics, and in TX-07, the media was similarly powerful enough that different groups wanted to take advantage of using the media. For demographic changes, the speed of the growth of the minority constituency was a factor in determining attitudes, not simply the growth itself. In both NJ-06 and TX-07, there wasn’t too much partisan shifting due to demographic changes.
I was generally convinced by your argument; however, I think that some of your evidence may have been skewed. There are a couple of reasons why. First, in terms of media coverage, I think that the results that you got could have been warped by using interviews. Primarily, different people could have looked at different news sources: for example, some people could have read more local news sources, whereas others could have read national sources. National news tends to be more focused on immigrant stereotypes (Abrajano & Hajnal), whereas local news sources tend to be more focused on specifically local problems. Branton and Dunaway, for example, look at border states and media coverage there, and conclude that anti-immigrant sentiment is stronger in those areas. This conclusion demonstrates that local media is, on balance, different from national media. Therefore, I feel that local media coverage has different aims and goals than national news sources, and I wish that I could have seen some of this analysis in your project. Secondarily, because you used an interview format, the results you received were self-reported. Therefore, any results about political changes caused by the media may not be completely accurate, and may have some personal biases. Overall, I’m not sure how effective going through interviews and therefore going through a third party would be in this case. I feel that it may have been a better idea to look at news coverage yourself, and perhaps used the interviews to supplement material you already compiled on your own. Second, in terms of the effect of demographic changes, I think that again, the interviews could have been infused with personal biases. Additionally, considering that both of you talked about the preexisting partisan leanings of your respective districts, I wonder if that had any impact on demographic changes in politics. For example, NJ-06 is already largely democratic; I wonder whether demographic changes would outweigh the partisanship that already exists. Partisanship is an extremely strong indicator of immigration preferences (Wong 2017), so perhaps that outweighs any effect demographic changes would have on the district. Similarly, in TX-07, the district is already majority Republican, so I wonder how you could draw any conclusions about backlash. Finally, I think that the evidence could have been skewed from a small sample size. For NJ-06, while you compiled four interviews from people of different races / backgrounds, you used these four interviews to make very generalized assumptions that I’m not sure are necessarily true. For example, since you only interviewed one white resident, I’m not sure you can make the claim that all white residents did not respond with white backlash to news coverage or to demographic changes. For TX-07, the interviewees you chose were very qualified on the subject: they certainly knew a lot about immigration, considering that they work primarily in the field. However, the two people you interviewed probably don’t represent the viewpoints and the knowledge level of the general public. For both districts, therefore, interviews would have been more effective with a larger sample size. Overall, however, I think that it’s very valuable to hear from the perspective of people within the district themselves; it’s important to think about these issues from the qualitative side, which is definitely something that much of the research we were reading missed. I think this perspective is very unique, and it’s not really something that I have thought of before.
This was a nice comparison of the sixth district of New Jersey and the seventh district of Texas. They both conducted qualitative interview studies of constituents in NJ and of advocates in Texas. While they have different political climates, there were similar increases in minority populations and foreign born populations in both districts. They argue that representatives should respond to demographic changes by having a prescience about the immigrant issue and promoting cross-cultural awareness to mitigate potential issues particularly in regards to the media representation.
For the New Jersey study, they focused on evaluating the differences in perception to immigration news coverages of Asians vs. Latinos. For the Texas study, he focused on the perception and effects of the growth of ethnic populations. Policymakers emphasized the danger of dissemination of fake new and nonprofits discussed how they have engaged with media outlets to show immigrants in other lights. They found a fundamental distrust of the media in Texas and NJ and an awarness of the impact of the media on political affiliation. Lastly, in line with Chavez, the reaction to immigrant coverage is media dependent. Overall, I found their analysis of their two districts very compelling and convincing, particularly in regards to interviewing strategy. While I am not surprised by their findings, I found their specific recommendation that policymakers and advocate should fight against media biases a unique perspective.