“Illegal,” “Undocumented,” or “Unauthorized”: Equivalency Frames, Issue Frames, and Public Opinion on Immigration

Merolla, Jennifer L.; Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick; Haynes, Chris

doi:10.1017/s1537592713002077

Cited by 150 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vliegenthart (2007, 2009) examine the role of news media on the rise of antiimmigrant parties and anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe. At the same time, Merolla, Ramakrishnan, and Haynes (2012) find that efforts to describe and frame immigrants as either 'undocumented' or 'illegal' have less influence on public opinion than frames about immigration policies. From the perspective of scholars of migrants and minorities, the relevance of framing and representation is clear: it is vital to understand how different groups are portrayed and the extent to which media representations affect public opinion, political mobilisation and policy outcomes.…”

Section: Representations and The Media: How Migrants And Minorities Amentioning

confidence: 92%

Migrants, Minorities and the Media: Information, Representations and Participation in the Public Sphere

Bleich¹,

Bloemraad²,

Graauw³

2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars of political communication have stressed the critical role of the media in modern liberal democracies (Bennett and Entman 2001;Chong and Druckman 2007; Koopmans and Statham 2010;McCombs 2004;Norris 2000). The media inform the public, provide a communicative bridge between political and social actors, influence perceptions of pressing issues, depict topics and people in particular ways and may shape individuals' political views and participation. Despite this critical role, students of migrants and minorities have rarely used systematic media analysis in their scholarship. We believe that the time is ripe to review how a focus on the media can help advance a field that traditionally has been explored with other types of data. In this special issue, we showcase a diverse set of new research to illustrate the ways in which media analysis advances our knowledge about migrants and minorities in the public sphere.Understanding the factors that shape media coverage of migrants and minorities, as well as the effect of that coverage on public attitudes, policy outcomes or social relations, has a modest but growing foundation. To further advance our knowledge, this special issue is oriented around a comparative approach. Media coverage may be copious or minimal, positive or negative, social or political. These axes of difference can be examined across time; across regions, countries or cities; between media outlets of different types, political stripes or economic ownership structures; and with reference to a wide range of migrant or minority groups and issues, spanning asylum to security, integration to racial discrimination. Comparative analysis connects

show abstract

Section: Representations and The Media: How Migrants And Minorities Amentioning

confidence: 92%

Migrants, Minorities and the Media: Information, Representations and Participation in the Public Sphere

Bleich¹,

Bloemraad²,

Graauw³

2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also know that illegal immigration arouses greater hostility than legal (e.g. Schildkraut 2012;Merolla et al 2013), but much remains to be learned about why this is so and whether opposition to each type of immigration results from similar psychological motivations. Public opinion scholarship has primarily focused on the relative power of economic and ''socio-psychological'' threats as explanations for diffuse antiimmigrant sentiment but only rarely has distinguished between legal and illegal immigration (see for a review and references).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars debate the relative strength of economic and 'socio-psychological' sources of anti-immigrant sentiment. However, the literature often fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration and therefore overlooks a major instance in which this debate is moot. To address this issue, we develop a theory that recognizes two different modes of evaluating immigrants: ''attribute-based'' judgment, in which respondents weigh immigrants' desirability based on individual characteristics-human capital, race, language ability, and so on-and ''categorical'' judgment, which disregards these altogether. Categorical judgments arise when a policy issue triggers blanket considerations of justice or principle that obviate considerations about putative beneficiaries' individual merits, instead evoking overriding beliefs about the desirability of the policy as a whole or casting the entire category as uniformly deserving or undeserving. We use experimental evidence from two national surveys to show that the principal distinction between attitudes toward legal and illegal immigration is not in the relative weight of immigrants' attributes but the much greater prevalence of categorical assessments of illegal

show abstract

“…The literature suggests that public opinion and migration policy‐framing affect one another (Merolla et al., ; Watson, ). The findings of this study show that metaphors have a specific role in this relation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Discussion on the Naturalization Policy for Syrians in Turkey

Atasü-Topcuoğlu

2018

International Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the public opinion on the naturalization policy for Syrians in Turkey. It analyses news media coverage in the religious, far‐right newspaper (Yeni Akit), a centre‐right newspaper (Hürriyet), a social democrat newspaper (Cumhuriyet), and a socialist‐left news portal (Solportal). The research question is: What are the metaphors, arguments, and omissions produced by media of different ideologies about the possible citizenship of Syrians in Turkey? The results show that metaphors and arguments differ according to ideological stance, suggesting that the current political polarization in Turkey affects the public's acceptance of Syrians and challenges Turkey's established migration policy. Each ideological stance accepts Syrians on a selective basis, implying that universal naturalization of Syrians is not welcome; instead, there seems to be consensus favouring naturalization according to socio‐economic criteria. These results indicate a need for a change in migration policy, especially concerning disadvantaged Syrians.

show abstract

“Illegal,” “Undocumented,” or “Unauthorized”: Equivalency Frames, Issue Frames, and Public Opinion on Immigration

Cited by 150 publications

References 46 publications

Migrants, Minorities and the Media: Information, Representations and Participation in the Public Sphere

Migrants, Minorities and the Media: Information, Representations and Participation in the Public Sphere

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

Media Discussion on the Naturalization Policy for Syrians in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About