Antonella DemartiniP.A. 705: Research Proposal

May 5, 2010

Discussion of Immigration Policy in U.S. Congress in Recent Decades

3

1: Highway image of the U.S.-Mexico border; 2: Airport security checkpoint image of T.S.A. Security; 3: Olson/Getty; A counter-demonstrator squares off with immigrant rights supporters during a protest outside Wrigley Field

before the start of the Cubs' game against the Arizona Diamondbacks Thursday, 04/29/2010.

21

Anti-immigration literature :

• Undocumented immigrants lower domestic wages and raise expenditures on public services like health care (Fogel, 1980; Chiswick, 1988;Diamond, 1996).

• Legalizing undocumented immigrants rewards individuals who have broken the law and creates future incentive for undocumented migration (Jasper, 2006; Gordon, 2007 ).

• Increased border enforcement deters future illegal immigration (Napolitano, 2009 ).

Pro-immigration literature:• The U.S. is a nation made of immigrants

(Jacoby, 2006).• The vast majority of immigrants are not

criminals and come the U.S. in search of economic and political stability. Despite increasing border security, undocumented immigration continues (Jacoby, 2006).

• Immigrants fill skilled and unskilled labor supply gaps (Gordon, 2007), pay income taxes (Martin, 2003; Jacoby, 2006) and do not lower U.S. native wages (Hanson & Robertson & Spilimbergo, 2002; Jacoby, 2006).

Contradiction of U.S. policy?

• U.S. Economic policy has integrated international markets while U.S. immigration policy has restricted immigrant flow, increasing inequitable distribution of employment opportunities (Chang, 1997; Andreas 1998; Massey, 2007; Yoskowitz, et.al. 2002; Rivera-Batiz, 2000; Tuman & Neely, 2003; Gordon, 2007; Rodriugez 2008)

• While it would seem only natural to integrate international labor markets, their integration faces obstruction (Massey, 2007) because U.S. immigration law limits the avenues to legalization (Massey, 2007; Chavez, 2007).

• Americans are deeply divided regarding how to deal with undocumented immigration (Chavez, 2003; Rivera-Batiz, 2000; Blendon et.al. 2005; Yankelovich, 2005) and national discontent with immigrants tends to increase when the U.S. economy is experiencing a downturn (Rivera-Batiz, 2000).

Problem Statement• U.S. economic policy has integrated national markets with

policies like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but U.S. immigration policy has restricted immigrant flow with policies like IRCA (Immigrant Control & Reform Act) and the PATRIOT act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism).

• Research largely frames immigration as an issue of national security, not an issue of labor policy and regulation. The reviewed literature on immigration does not explain causes for the shift in the immigration policy debate in U.S. Congress.

• Studying how U.S. Congress considers the competing goals of national security versus labor policy regulation can illuminate connections between discourse and policy language, which may reveal values that underlie U.S. policy.

Why does this matter?

I place my research in a larger framework of public policy regarding immigrants. Understanding the values that underlie U.S. policy brings us closer to understanding what obstacles and opportunities could deter or lead to immigrant-friendly policy reform.

Research Questions

• Is immigration policy more heavily influenced by national security concerns or by economic concerns in national policy discussions in U.S. Congress?

• Is policy discourse that is influenced by national security concerns related to more restrictive immigration policies?

• What patterns differentiate how Democrats and Republicans address immigration policy?

• Do any relationships exist between the state/ party affiliation of the Congressperson and discourse concepts used?

Research Hypothesis

At key decision points in immigration policy, Democrats are more likely to focus on economic concerns while Republicans are more likely to focus on national security concerns.

Research Design:Mixed Methods Content Analysis

• Part 1: Quantitative– Count words and phrases indicating national

security concepts or labor concepts using NVivo software

– Perform statistical analysis using SPSS software

• Part 2: Qualitative– Analysis of correlation of frequency of discourse

concepts to policy language of IRCA & the PATRIOT Act

Research Data• DATA:

– Congressional transcripts from 98-100th Congresses (1985-1987) and 106-108th Congresses (2000-2002) from the Committees on the Judiciary, Committee on Homeland Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

• UNIT OF ANALYSIS: – code words, or national security and labor

policy discourse concepts

Research Methods• Quantitative

– Describe raw data• frequency of concepts• emerging patterns

– Diagram independent variables against one another using line graphs and scatter plots

• Qualitative:– Analysis of correlation of frequency of concepts to

policy language of IRCA & the PATRIOT Act– Grounded theory informs categorization and coding

process of national security and labor policy discourse concepts

Appendix E: Independent Variables

• Examples of national security concepts– Homeland security– Security enforcement– Terrorism– 9/11– Watch list– Border security

• Examples of labor policy concepts– Economic policy– Integrated markets– Exchange of goods and services– Illegal immigrant– Clandestine worker– Guest worker program

• Timing: year/congressional session• Political party affiliation • State

100% immigrant friendly 100% immigrant friendly

9   9  

   

7 IRCA 7  

   

5   5  

   

3   3  

   

1   1 PATRIOT ACT

0% immigrant friendly 0% immigrant friendly

IRCA, 1986

•Granted amnesty to certain immigrants

•Legalization for agricultural workers

•Increased employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized workers

PATRIOT act, 2001

•Expanded discretion of immigrant authorities and other agencies to detain and deport immigrants suspected of involvement in terrorist activities

Qualitative Analysis: Dependent Variable (Policy Language)

Proposed Timeline

• STAGE 1: Access congressional transcripts online via Congressional LexisNexis (1 week)

• STAGE 2: Run content analysis with NVivo and record raw data (1 month)

• STAGE 3: Run statistical analysis of data with SPSS and make sense of data (2 weeks)

• STAGE 4: Perform qualitative analysis of correlation of frequency of occurrence of concepts to policy outcomes (1 month)

• STAGE 5: Compile the final report (2 weeks)

References• Andreas, Peter. 1998. The Escalation of U.S. Immigration Control in the Post-NAFTA Era. Political Science

Quarterly. Vol 133, No. 4, 591-615.• Chang, Howard F. May 1997. Liberalized Immigration as Free Trade: Economic Welfare and the Optimal

Immigration Policy. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol 145, No. 95, 1147-1244.• Chiswick, B. (1988). Illegal Immigration and Immigration Control. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3), 101-

115. • Coutin, Susan Bibler. 2007. Nation of Emigrants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 179. • Diamond, S. (1996). Right-wing politics and the anti-immigration cause. Social Justice, 23(3), 154. • Fogel, W. 1980. United States Immigration Policy and Unsanctioned Immigrants. Industrial & Labor Relations

Review, 33(3), 295-311. • Hanson, Gordon H. April 2007. The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration. Council on Foreign Relations.

Council Special Report No. 46. New York, NY: Bernard and Irene Schwarz Series on American Competitiveness.• Hanson, Gordon H. & Robertson, Raymond & Spilimbergo, Antonio. February 2002. “Does Border Enforcement

Protect U.S. Workers From Illegal Immigration?” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84, No. 1, 73-92.• Jacoby, Tamar. December 2006. Immigration Nation. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 6. 50-65.• Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.• Massey, Douglas. September 2007. Understanding America’s Immigration “Crisis.” Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society, Vol. 151, No. 3, 309-327.• Napolitano, Janet. December 2009. Testimony of Secretary Napolitano Before Senate committee on Judiciary,

“Oversight of Department of Homeland Security.” Department of Homeland Security: States News Service. • Rivera-Batiz, Francisco L. Spring 2000. Underground on American Soil: Undocumented Workers and

Immigration Policy. Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 53, No. 2, 485-501.• Rodriguez, Christina M. February 2008. The Significance of the Local in Immigration Regulation. Michigan Law

Review, Vol. 106, Issue 4.• USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56)• William, Jasper F. May 2006. Shamnesty: Hijacking Reform. The New American, Vol. 22, Issue 9, 17.• Yoskowitz, David & Giermanski, James & Pena Sanchez, Rolando. 2002. The Influence of NAFTA on Socio-

economic Variables for the US-Mexico Border Region, Regional Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, 25-31. • Yankelovich, Daniel. October 2005. Poll Positions: What Americans Really Think About U.S. Foreign Policy.

Council on Foreign Relations. Vol. 84, No. 5, 2-16.