“…Eleven states declared independence from the Union, giving the CSA a commanding lead, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. While the Union army occupied Kentucky and Missouri, both states proclaimed secession and had full representation in the Previously-confederate Congress (Astor 2017 ; Holyfield et al 2009 ; McDaniel 2015 ; O’Connell 2020 ).…”
Section: The Previously-confederate States and Immigration Billsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the House representatives from non-CSA states have introduced (80%) of the immigration bills that proposed open approaches toward immigration policies and immigrants’ access to resources compared to CSA House representatives (20%). The generational narratives, interest group preferences, and political rhetoric have historically influenced the tendency to introduce immigration bills with restrictive implications from the elected representatives from the Previously-confederate states both in the house and Senate (Afzal 2021b , c ; Astor 2017 ; Bin Afzal 2019 ; Bin Afzal and Daniel Cravens 2017 ; Holyfield et al 2009 ; McDaniel 2015 ; Mudde 2012 ). Fig.…”
Section: The Previously-confederate States and Immigration Billsmentioning
The continuing health crisis (COVID-19) reinforces a historical pattern in which partisan-elected officials engage as legislative policy entrepreneurs (LPE) and use the health crisis time as a policy window to advance specifically restricted agendas by (re)introducing immigration bills on the House and Senate. The current exploratory qualitative study utilizes the theoretical underpinning of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to analyze the US House immigration bills from 2013 to 2021. The qualitative method of content relational analysis was applied in this research to capture the shifts and changes in (re)introduced immigration bills (
n
= 904) in the US House of Representatives for the 113th, 114th, 115th, and 116th sessions. Capturing and examining the underlying tone, word choices, and proposed measures in these immigration bills during health and non-health crisis periods received special attention. The qualitative relational content analysis revealed three major themes: (1) During public health crises (Ebola, Zika, and the first two years of COVID-19), restrictive House immigration bills tend to rise sharply; (2) Elected representatives from the Southern States are more likely to introduce restrictive immigration bills during health crises; and (3) Restrictive immigration bills are more likely to receive partisan support (bill co-sponsors) during health crises. The findings emphasize the need for inclusive agenda-setting during health crises and provide light on adaptive measures for supporting underprivileged immigrant communities with increased access to healthcare and public support.
“…Eleven states declared independence from the Union, giving the CSA a commanding lead, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. While the Union army occupied Kentucky and Missouri, both states proclaimed secession and had full representation in the Previously-confederate Congress (Astor 2017 ; Holyfield et al 2009 ; McDaniel 2015 ; O’Connell 2020 ).…”
Section: The Previously-confederate States and Immigration Billsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the House representatives from non-CSA states have introduced (80%) of the immigration bills that proposed open approaches toward immigration policies and immigrants’ access to resources compared to CSA House representatives (20%). The generational narratives, interest group preferences, and political rhetoric have historically influenced the tendency to introduce immigration bills with restrictive implications from the elected representatives from the Previously-confederate states both in the house and Senate (Afzal 2021b , c ; Astor 2017 ; Bin Afzal 2019 ; Bin Afzal and Daniel Cravens 2017 ; Holyfield et al 2009 ; McDaniel 2015 ; Mudde 2012 ). Fig.…”
Section: The Previously-confederate States and Immigration Billsmentioning
The continuing health crisis (COVID-19) reinforces a historical pattern in which partisan-elected officials engage as legislative policy entrepreneurs (LPE) and use the health crisis time as a policy window to advance specifically restricted agendas by (re)introducing immigration bills on the House and Senate. The current exploratory qualitative study utilizes the theoretical underpinning of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to analyze the US House immigration bills from 2013 to 2021. The qualitative method of content relational analysis was applied in this research to capture the shifts and changes in (re)introduced immigration bills (
n
= 904) in the US House of Representatives for the 113th, 114th, 115th, and 116th sessions. Capturing and examining the underlying tone, word choices, and proposed measures in these immigration bills during health and non-health crisis periods received special attention. The qualitative relational content analysis revealed three major themes: (1) During public health crises (Ebola, Zika, and the first two years of COVID-19), restrictive House immigration bills tend to rise sharply; (2) Elected representatives from the Southern States are more likely to introduce restrictive immigration bills during health crises; and (3) Restrictive immigration bills are more likely to receive partisan support (bill co-sponsors) during health crises. The findings emphasize the need for inclusive agenda-setting during health crises and provide light on adaptive measures for supporting underprivileged immigrant communities with increased access to healthcare and public support.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
