Linguistic Metaphors Shape Attitudes towards Immigration

Immigration policy has been one of the top concerns of American voters over the last decade and has attracted some of the most heated rhetoric in politics and news media across the world. Much like other political language, talk about immigration is suffused with metaphor. To what extent does the language about immigration, and specifically the metaphors used, influence people’s views of the issues? How powerful are these metaphors? In our studies, we exposed participants to one of four versions of a passage about an increase in immigrants in one town. The four versions of the passage included all identical facts and figures and differed in only a single word at the beginning of the passage, describing the increase in immigrant labor as either an “increase,” a “boost,” an “invasion,” or a “flood.” Although the passages differed only in this one word, participants’ attitudes towards this increase and their predictions about its effects on the economy differed significantly depending on the metaphor. Of course, opinions on immigration differ across political affiliations. Remarkably, the single word metaphor was strong enough to mitigate much of the difference in opinion on immigration between Democrats and Republicans in our sample. Further analyses suggested that the results are not due simply to positive or negative lexical associations to the metaphorical words, and also that metaphors can act covertly in organizing people’s beliefs.

Taking Time Seriously: Biographical Circumstance and Immigrant Labor Integration Experience

The article offers a re-conceptualization of the labor integration process which takes temporality into account as a relevant feature that, rather than following patterned frames of reference, is actively referenced through narratively and socially constructed formations of understanding. The European policy strategy regarding immigrants has shifted in the past decades from a focus on social integration to a predominant focus on labor market integration, due in part to the relatively high unemployment rates of immigrants entering and migrating within Europe. A personalized approach used throughout Europe to “empower” and move immigrants into the labor market has not been realized in practice. Norway, a “best case scenario” for a more personalized approach through comprehensive labor integration and activation measures, has also had limited success with the sustained labor integration of immigrants. We suggest that a source of the problem lies in the conceptualization of labor integration, which, in contrast to true personalization, follows a patterned notion of the process. We argue that such a conceptualization does not provide the means to explore and untangle potentially significant processes and mechanisms relevant to the labor integration experience. We introduce the concept of biographical circumstance to demonstrate how immigrant participants in a Norwegian labor activation program draw on different references from their personal histories as they make meaning of their labor integration—and how meaning-making is dialectically shaped and delimited by the structural effects of changing policy opportunities, rules, and regulations. We conducted 14 qualitative interviews with immigrants involved in the Norwegian Qualification Program, a national labor activation program. We select four participants to present as illustrative cases of biographical circumstance and meaning making. The four differently make meaning of and respond to their labor integration experiences through active reference to specific personal histories and changing policy encounters over time. The data demonstrate that accounting for biographical circumstance enables us to better understand the actions, rationalizations, and motivations of immigrants participating in labor integration and activation measures.

3. Removing barriers and debating consequences

America emerged from World War II a more unified, confident society, experiencing dramatic economic expansion and exercising military and political supremecy as the world’s dominant superpower. Racism and restrictionism in immigration and refugee law and policy were a burden on claims to world leadership. Continuing economic expansion could be reinforced by immigrant labor. Support grew for more open immigration and refugee regimes without racial and nationality restrictions. A series of laws created foundations for an expansive refugee policy. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act ended restrictive quotas and racial deselections. The public was not overly enthusiastic about a re-inception of mass immigration, and was assured that this would not happen. However, when paired with unsettling political and economic change as modernization spread outside Europe, the unintended consequence of the 1965 law was intense controversy over unprecedented numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, principally from Asia and Latin America.

Free labor mobility and indeterminacy in models of neoclassical growth

This paper establishes the conditions under which indeterminacy can occur in a Neoclassical growth model with international labor mobility. In the model, workers are supposed to move freely across countries without restrictions, and according to a Harris–Todaro mechanism that makes migration flows sensitive to differences among labor markets conditions. The paper shows that indeterminacy requires the marginal returns to immigrant labor to be diminishing, and no need for productivity externalities at a social level. It also shows that immigration quotas can serve it well to eliminate indeterminacy and stabilize final output.

Fighting the "Immigrant Threat" Narrative

Ruth Milkman's latest book is a strong scholarly response to the "immigrant threat" narrative that has been central to U.S. politics in the last decades. In Immigrant Labor and the New Precariat, the distinguished labor and migration scholar has a clear goal: to reframe the conversation about migration and increased inequality in the United States, reversing the causal relation that blames migration for the U.S. working class's current perils.