A Danger to National Security: Media Maintenance of Symbolic Boundaries in Coverage of Restrictive Immigration Legislation

• In Event: 242 - Section on International Migration Roundtable Session (one-hour).
  In Refereed Roundtable: Table 03. Migration and the State

Abstract

The government is no longer as explicit in defending the boundaries of whiteness, but it continues to play a central role in defining the boundaries between immigrants and nonimmigrants, which has implications for the maintenance of racial and ethnic inequality. These boundaries, however, might become more meaningful when they are disseminated to the public by means of the media. And how the media covers these policies might depend on local contextual dynamics. To examine these ideas, we combine two data sets: a sample of six of the most recognized exclusionary immigration bills and laws at different levels of government that were proposed or enacted between 2000 and 2010, and coverage of these bills and laws derived from newspapers located in four metropolitan areas. Using these data, we investigate if the media reinforce or challenge boundaries promoted by lawmakers, and if discrepancies can be explained by local context. Three patterns emerged from our analysis of outlets: first, newspapers sensationalize already sensational bills/laws; second, when reporting on arguments in support of exclusionary legislation, newspapers most frequently covered arguments that framed unauthorized immigrants as threatening and/or as criminals; and, lastly, newspapers tend to devote as much if not more attention to the consequences for nonimmigrants as they do for immigrants. The implications are such that outlets often further contribute to boundary maintenance, even if they are implicitly critical of the exclusionary legislation.

Authors

• Emily Estrada, North Carolina State University

• Michelle Lore, North Carolina State University

• Kim Ebert, North Carolina State University