Moralizing Immigration: Political Framing, Moral Conviction, and Polarization in the United States and Denmark

Morally charged rhetoric is commonplace in political discourse on immigration but scholars have not examined how it affects divisions over the issue among the public. To address this gap, we employ preregistered survey experiments in two countries where anti-immigration rhetoric has been prominent: the United States and Denmark. We demonstrate that exposure to moralized messages leads respondents to place greater moral weight on their existing immigration opinions and become more averse to political leaders and, in the United States, social interaction partners who espouse opposite beliefs. This suggests that political moralization contributes to moral conflict and affective polarization. We find no evidence, however, that moral framing produces attitudinal polarization—that is, more extreme immigration opinions. Our study helps make sense of the heightened intensity of anti-immigrant politics even when attitudes are stable. It also suggests a promising avenue for comparative research on affective polarization by shifting the focus from partisanship to the moralization of existing issue disagreements.

Means-Tested Safety Net Programs and Hispanic Families: Evidence from Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC

Hispanic families have historically used means-tested assistance less than high-poverty peers, and one explanation for this may be that anti-immigrant politics and policies are a barrier to program participation. We document the participation of Hispanic children in three antipoverty programs by age and parental citizenship and the correlation of participation with state immigrant-based restrictions. Hispanic citizen children with citizen parents participate in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid more than Hispanic citizen children with noncitizen parents. Foreign-born Hispanic mothers use Medicaid less than their socioeconomic status would suggest. However, little evidence exists that child participation in Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) varies by mother’s nativity: foreign-born mothers of Hispanic infants participate in WIC at higher rates than U.S.-born Hispanic mothers. State policies that restrict immigrant program use correlate to lower SNAP and Medicaid uptake among citizen children of foreign-born Hispanic mothers. WIC participation may be greater because it is delivered through nonprofit clinics, and WIC eligibility for immigrants is largely unrestricted.

Chant Down the Walls: Exploring the Potential of Video Methods in the Study of Immigrant Politics and Social Movements

In this chapter I draw on my fieldwork experience in Los Angeles to discuss the potential of video for qualitative research on migration and political action. I focus specifically on three aspects: access to the field, research respondents and data; video and the study of micro-social interaction; video as a tool to generate new insights and data. I argue that video has facilitated, enriched and expanded my understanding of migrant political action in several ways, some of which were entirely unexpected at the beginning of this research. Within the field of migration studies, video appears particularly suitable to research the terrain of politics and culture, since it provides the means to study a key social aspect that is difficult to investigate in detail only with other types of methods: interaction. Hence, video as both a tool and a method proved a useful complement to interviews, artefacts and archive documentation.

The Dynamic Relationship between Immigrant Politics and Urban Policy Making: Protecting the Rights of Undocumented Immigrants in Boston and Amsterdam

With the advancement of comparative studies within the field of immigration and sociopolitical movements, scholars have attempted to understand how politico-institutional contexts influence the mobilization strategies of immigrant rights organizations at the local level. In this article, I make use of a field approach to explain how these organizations face different group-and issue-specific conditions regarding their involvement in local policy-making processes. Empirically, I examine the advocacy work of immigrant rights organizations in their aim to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants in Boston (USA) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands). By approaching power and resistance as relational phenomena, the results indicate that the intersection of distinct institutional and organizational mechanisms has differently impacted the local fields of immigrant politics. Taking different routes, in both cities immigrant rights organizations have found ways to constitute an affirmative institutional and discursive counterpower that challenges the national exclusionary citizenship regimes from the ground.

Trump’s Trump: Lou Barletta and the Limits of Anti-Immigrant Politics in Pennsylvania

This chapter examines the underpinnings and limits of ethno-nationalism in the politically pivotal state of Pennsylvania by tracking the career of Lou Barletta, US congressman and former mayor of Hazleton in the declining rustbelt area of Luzerne County. Often known as Donald Trump’s political godfather, Barletta rose to political fame by attacking Hispanic immigrants as criminals and sponsoring severe restrictions on their rights. He went on to win a seat in the US House and become one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump’s 2016 candidacy. The president then recruited Barletta to run for the Senate in 2018 and strongly backed his campaign based on highlighting threats from immigrants. But Barletta lost, illuminating the limits of anti-immigrant appeals in statewide and national politics.