Immigration Reform, the Boston Marathon Bombings, and Twitter

By James Witte and Randy Lynn

Beginning in February 2013, researchers at the Institute for Immigration Research (IIR) at George Mason University began tracking the national immigration reform conversation on Twitter. Our view was that Twitter would be one of several social media venues where the evolving immigration reform debate could be tracked and analyzed. Since then, using DiscoverText and NodeXL, two different data mining applications, we’ve collected over 750,000 tweets containing the word “immigration.”

The Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013 provided an unexpected opportunity to examine how this event has affected the immigration reform debate. We compared conversations about immigration on Twitter before, during, and after April 15.

Below we provide a series of NodeXL network graphs that illustrates the shifting Twitter conversation. Each visualization depicts the relationships between tweets containing the word “immigration” over the course of a four-hour period. NodeXL not only collects the content of the tweet and the identity of the tweeter, but also who follows whom, who is retweeting whom, and who is having a conversation with whom.

To represent these relationships, NodeXL uses an algorithm to group the tweeters into clusters. Tweeters belonging to the same cluster are highly interconnected; they tend to follow each other, retweet each other’s tweets, have conversations with each other, and use similar words in their tweets. Green lines represent connections between tweeters in different clusters, while the text overlaying each cluster represents the most common content among the tweets in that cluster.

Two Weeks Before the Bombing

The first visualization below is typical of what we saw in early April, before the bombing. In the lower right corner, there are small clusters with very few connections to other tweeters. In the lower middle area, there are tweeters who aren’t connected to anyone else tweeting about immigration.

Most of the tweeters, however, belong to one of three main clusters. The cluster in the lower left corner is a liberal cluster, as evidenced by some of its most common content (e.g., “timeisnow”). The cluster in the upper right corner is a very conservative cluster dominated by the Tea Party. These two clusters have very few connections between them, indicating that there are very few conversations between their members.

The third cluster, in the upper left corner, includes such diverse tweeters as the RNC, the AFL-CIO, and Bloomberg. It’s best described as a mainstream cluster that includes both liberal as well as conservative viewpoints. These tweeters tend not to be as extreme, and they have many connections with the two more ideological clusters, which suggests that this the mainstream cluster acts in part as an informational bridge between them.

The Day of the Bombing

This visualization, based on tweets collected between 4 and 8 p.m. on April 15, 2013, tells a very different story. Tweeters in all clusters were tweeting about the bombing in relation to immigration — even though there was not yet any evidence of such a connection. As the left half of the visualization shows, there was a large influx of tweeters who weren’t connected to any other immigration tweeters. Words like “deportation,” “amnesty,” “terrorism,” and “borders” point to possible risks associated with immigration seen by these newcomers, as well as moderates and conservatives (lower middle), but not among liberals (upper right).

The Tea Party cluster (middle right) seems to have diminished in size. Tea Partiers on Twitter were still tweeting about immigration, but it appears that more moderate, mainstream tweeters and more conservative tweeters had converged into a single cluster. However, it was unclear at this point whether this change would persist, or whether it was a temporary shift in the conversation.

Ten Days After the Bombing

Our evidence suggests that after a temporary deviation in the days immediately following the bombing, the immigration conversation on Twitter has largely returned to its pre-bombing appearance. The visualization below is from April 25, and it shows a decrease in the number of unconnected tweeters (lower left), as well as the reestablishment of a liberal cluster (lower middle), a conservative/Tea Party cluster (upper right), and a bridging, mainstream cluster (upper left). Note, however, that “bostonbomber” is still one of the most frequently used words in conjunction with immigration in the most conservative cluster. On the other hand, the bombing does not appear as prominent in immigration tweets among unconnected, mainstream, and liberal immigration tweeters.

Twitter and Immigration Reform in the Future

In the mainstream media, the evidence that Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing has led to speculation that comprehensive immigration reform might be delayed, derailed, or even abandoned in Congress. But in the short run, we found no indication that this connection has left a permanent mark on the immigration reform conversation on Twitter. In fact, we found that the immigration conversation quickly returned to patterns similar to those we saw before the bombing.

To the extent that Twitter activity reflects sentiment among influential politicians, journalists, and activists, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform can feel encouraged. On the other hand, conversations on Twitter are not necessarily representative of public opinion. In fact, the Pew Research Center has recently released a study that highlights notable disconnects between public opinion polls and views expressed on Twitter.

As the national conversation on immigration reform continues, so too will our efforts to monitor this debate as it takes place in various venues, including Twitter and other social media forums. Clearly there are many passionate, influential individuals and organizations that regularly tweet about immigration and immigration reform from many varying points of view. Continued analysis of these conversations is important for tracking the progress of immigration reform, but also for better understanding the relationship between social media and public opinion.

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post May 1, 2013

Onions, Apples, Tomatoes and Immigration Reform: We Owe it to Ourselves

By Jean Boucher and James Witte

If you own a garden, have ever experimented with gardening, or are even vaguely aware of fluctuations in availability and prices of produce in your supermarket, you know that different fruits and vegetables have different seasons. April will soon be upon us, the beginning of another spring, and harvest time for many crops in the U.S.

For instance, if you happen to live in Vidalia, Georgia — “The Sweet Onion City” (population 10,503 in 2010) — you know that onion season, your name sake, has officially begun. You might even celebrate and attend the annual onion festival, where you can have a burger, enter the cooking competition, or just enjoy some deep fried rings while watching the battle of the bands.

Georgia takes much pride in its agriculture. According to the Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgian agriculture is a $68 billion industry — Georgia’s oldest and largest industry for almost three centuries. One in seven Georgians works in agriculture, forestry, or a related field, and with its ideal mix of climate and soil virtually any crop will grow. But crops neither plant nor pick themselves and, as illustrated by the prized Vidalia onion, our broken immigrant worker system presents significant challenges for agriculture.

The issue came to a head last year, when due to the crackdown in immigration laws, labor shortages were experienced during harvest time. Some of the sweet Vidalias weren’t getting picked, crops were lost, and some farmers were reconsidering their means of livelihood. Should they try new methods of attracting workers? How much more could they afford to pay? Should they change crops to less labor intensive and less lucrative peanuts? Onion picking is not automated, it’s “back breaking,” and most people avoid the work if they can.

Agricultural labor shortages weren’t only felt in Georgia last year. On the other side of the country, while Washington state was enjoying its second largest crop in history, some apple growers experienced a 40-50 percent shortage in labor and experienced crop losses of up to 25 percent. Though picking pay was raised, the increases were not enough to attract sufficient workers. Martin Estrada, manager of Monkey Ridge Ranch, a huge apple plantation on Snake River, commented that pickers drove by, checked the picking pay, and often drove off dissatisfied. Though Washington produces many fruits and vegetables, apples are its top farm commodity: supporting nearly 60,000 jobs and generating an estimated $7 billion annually. Though growing capacity has increased, labor has decreased. In response to last year’s shortage of labor, the state government intervened and allowed prison labor to be used — as did the Vidalia onion farmers in 2012.

In 2011, a similar shortage happened in Alabama — rumored to be the perfect place for growing tomatoes. Brian Cash, whose family owns a 125 acre farm atop Chandler Mountain, estimated a $100,000 loss due to the immigrant crackdown and shortages in labor. He was unable to find replacements for the grueling field work. In response to what some considered a commercial disaster, smaller crops — to compensate for the reduced labor — were planted in 2012. One squash producer reported moving production to Tennessee; while Jimmy Miller, a tomato grower, switched crops to cotton and peanuts as these are more easily automated and less labor intensive.

Should America’s farmers be dealing with these obstacles to production? Should American consumers be paying higher prices for produce due to these same obstacles?

This is not an argument in defense of undocumented farm workers. Though some farmers might prefer the lower costs of an undocumented worker, others have expressed their support of tighter borders and a proper legal process. Bottom-line: farmers don’t want to lose their crops, whether their workers are legal or not.

Some farmers — having annually applied through the visa system for the appropriate number of guest workers — have complained that governmental constraints get worse each year. R.T. Stanley, a Georgia onion grower, explained how he had applied for 60 workers, but only 17 arrived — allegedly the paperwork got lost.

Rumors of immigration reform are in the air with much discussion focused on high-skill workers in science, technology and engineering. The agricultural industry illustrates, however, that comprehensive immigration reform affecting workers with varying levels of skill will be to our country’s economic advantage. Immigrant workers, besides their contribution as workers, also contribute economically as consumers. Workers need to be housed, pay rent, buy clothing, and eat. In addition, immigrant consumers often have different tastes than the native-born, opening new markets and expanding the range of consumer options. For example, Wal-Mart reported carrying beef tongue and tripe to satisfy a growing Latino market. New markets spur growth, economic development, and broader consumer choices.

If we don’t fix our immigrant worker system, then onion, apple, and tomato farmers may make decisions that, though good for them, lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers. Perhaps it is time for the onion to leave Vidalia, Georgia, and be replaced by the peanut; maybe we ought not fight it. Maybe it’s an easy switch to enjoy ourselves at a peanut festival instead. But does this make sense when fixing the broken immigration system can benefit both producers and consumers? It’s time for comprehensive immigration reform; we owe it to ourselves.

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post April 3, 2013

On Anti-immigration Laws and the Supreme Court

By Leo Pierson

“Should more creative and positive alternatives to meet [immigration concerns] continue to be neglected, nativist trends will proliferate across the nation.”

I wrote that as a policy warning in the conclusion of my Master’s thesis back in spring of 2009. Now, nearly three years to the day, the Supreme Court Justices are set to consider the constitutionality of Arizona’s restrictionist immigration law. The decision they render could alter the course of American history.

While most conversations will focus on the legal arguments, I’m going to talk about the intent of these laws and the principles these policies seek to undermine. After all, the most important thing to the people and to the stability of our country is the legacy of fairness that undergirds our constitutional principles. It is that ever fragile ideal of ‘justice on both sides’ to which state level anti-immigrant policies now lay siege.

Immigrants–particularly Latinos in both their specificity and generality–are seen as “other” than what some folks–from everyday citizens to those embedded in our national security apparatus–conceive of as “real Americans”, or productive, law abiding members of society. Even though greater than 85% of Latinos are citizens and legal residents, we disproportionately carry the burdensome weight of being illegal as stigma.

While this existentialist belief in illegality–the core of the anti-immigrant argument–runs contrary to every academically rigorous research paper on the subject, political leaders such as Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, relentlessly push their disingenuous vitriol onto the public sphere with abjectly false statements like:

“We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it: everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and extortion and the beheadings and the fact that people can’t feel safe in their communities; it’s wrong!”

The American sociologist, Erving Goffman, famously wrote, “By definition…we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination.” The type of stigma that particularly fits us Latinos, he called a “tribal stigma” such as “race, nation, [and] religion.” These, said Goffman, “can be transmitted through lineages [or entire ethnicities] and equally contaminate all members of a family.”

So in the case of the contemporary immigration question, specifically Latinos–not entirely unlike the Irish, Italians and Jews in times past–have been dehumanized and demonized as undesirables, as illegals. And it isn’t just those who are undocumented; we are all caricatured as “illegal criminals”. Even our children, who represent roughly a full third of our population, are caste in such stigmatizing terms as anchor babies… dog food… parasites. As Elena Schlossberg cogently stated in a 2007 county board meeting, “They are talking about children! And [politicians] have not taken a leadership role to stop this!”

You see, when I think of Latinos, I think of artists and poets and proud, hard working families. I think of the people who will–quite literally–sustain the very foundations of this great nation when, in the not-so-distant future, most other demographics begin a precipitous decline.

But that intolerably pejorative term “illegal” spoils everything positive and powerful about what it means to be Latino. In the process of being labeled as illegals, we move away from the self identity as one of this nation’s greatest hopes and toward the social construction of dark, dangerous and dirty criminals; criminals who do not respect U.S. culture, language or laws. Thus, using the term “illegal”, which functions as a racial epithet, allows “legals” to justify passing all sorts of race-laced laws because “illegals”–criminals–destroy thriving, safe communities.

Anti-immigrant laws are inherently or structurally discriminatory precisely because their juridical constructions are directly premised, not on fact, but on the wretched foundations of negative stereotypes and stigmas. These laws go beyond the tacit encouragement of racial profiling by overtly validating the coerced removal of security threats, the definitions of which are constructed out of false ideologies of criminality.

These laws should be seen for what they are: attempts to shred the fabric of American culture. This is a state-by-state effort to chip away at the very essence of who we are as a nation. They don’t simply mirror nor do they compliment federal policy. Rather, with sweeping and divisive hostility, they both impede upon the sense of justice and fairness laid out by the American Constitution’s Enlightenment principles, and vis-à-vis stigma, they attempt to alter the definition(s) of who is and who is not American. The later represents the first material steps toward creating a pervasive “show-me-your-papers” society; a dystopic reality already being forced upon clergy and elementary school students in states like Alabama.

Indeed, Judge Bolton noted in her opinion that these laws will significantly increase “the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up” by requiring everybody to prove their status.

Not once has history rewarded societies that follow this foreshadowed path. So when the Supreme Court Justices hear this case, they truly ought to let their minds wander a bit to the imagery conjured by that notion.

And as you watch and wait for their decision, you ought to do the same.

Leo Pierson is a public sociologist and a faculty member of the Department of Humanities and Sciences at Cincinnati State. His research and policy work topically cover immigrant work culture, policy and the politics of U.S. immigration, as well as the politics of immigration of Northern Virginia and Ohio. As a Latino civil rights advocate, Leo works within state and national legislative structures to ensure equal protection for the Latino community. He is the Board Vice Chair of LULAC-Ohio and a member of the LULAC National Committee on Civil Rights. Leo is also the first Latino Board Trustee of the environmental organization, Ohio Citizen Action. Ohio Citizen’s Money in Politics Project is the authoritative source for data and analysis of the role of big money in Ohio politics.
You may find more about his work at www.onimmigration.com

This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post, April23, 2012