Immigration: it's all about priming

Who and What Are We Talking About?

Over and over again in American politics, election after election, we may hear politicians talking about their positions on immigration. More often than not, immigration is framed as both a political and social problem: people may be told to care about strain on government assistance programs, that immigrants are going to "take their jobs" because they will work for less than minimum wage, or even that (in extreme cases) immigrant communities pose some kind of threat to public safety. (See: Trump's comments on California Sanctuary laws)

Discussions about immigration within CONTEMPORARY American politics typically centers around immigration into the US via its southern border, including migrants from South and Central America. While there is obviously immigration from other countries and continents to the US every year, "security of the southern border" is brought up time and time again: if an American is to envision immigration based on politicians' descriptions of the topic, they are likely to imagine people migrating to the US via its southern border. Part of this issue, according to Trump and other Republicans, is the fact that people are illegally crossing into the United States. Politicians in general are vocally in favor of "meritocracy," or immigration on the basis of merit (the criteria for which can vary): those who are not following the legal channels for immigration are not "vetted" by the American government in the same way that documented immigrants are.

Undocumented vs. Illegal... does it matter?

The term "undocumented" is often used when referring to immigrants, but who is using this term? Based on a cursory Google search, mass media outlets like the New York Times, USA Today, and Forbes are likely to use the term "undocumented" when referring to immigrants who are, technically, not in the US legally. i.e., they do not have proper documentation. This term is also likely to be used by more left-leaning groups, like American Progress. The term "illegal immigrants," however, is more likely to be used by mass media groups like Fox News, the Epoch Times or the Heritage Foundation: groups that lean right. Even according to the website for the Department of Homeland security, undocumented (or unauthorized) immigrant and illegal alien are synonymous: both refer to someone who has migrated to the US without proper documentation or government oversight. I argue, however, that the portrayal of immigrants by the use of terms like "undocumented" and "illegal" prime constituents to be in favor of specific policy addressing immigration. Maybe, even, regardless of what the policy itself is.

Undocumented implies humanity

The word "undocumented" when referring to immigrants is often invoked by liberals and the left. The idea of being "undocumented" does not imply any blame on the person themself and, I would argue, implies an amount of humanity. The use of the term "undocumented" seems, to me, to attempt to subvert the idea that immigrants should be villified for taking unauthorized residence in the United States: they are not wrong, they are just undocumented. This humanization of immigrants also falls in line with the assumed Democrat position on less stringent immigration laws. Humanizing immigrants through the word "undocumented" is likely to prime voters in favor of less intense immigration laws (Dem. positioning). Meanwhile...

Illegal doesn't just imply unlawfulness, it states it

Using the term "illegal" to refer to immigrants is, pretty blatantly, stating that they are in violation of law and order by residing in the United States. I believe that the term goes further than that though: calling someone illegal is doing just that. The term "illegal immigrant" is literally stating that that person is themself illegal. This term also inherently implies a threat to law and order, and even potentially the structure of society or individual wellbeing. "Illegal" intentionally dehumanizes immigrants, and similarly primes voters in favor of more intense and stringent immigration laws (Rep. positioning). Which begs the question...

To what extent are individual positions on policy reflective of personal attitude, and to what extent are they reflective of our political socialization? (I don't have the answer, it's just something I think about all the time.)

A.M.