Studying Immigrant Policy One Law at a Time

This study initiates a methodological critique of the state‐level immigration policy literature through the lens of the racial threat and group power perspectives. First, I highlight the conceptual problems related to the application of such theories to legislature‐level data analysis. Next, I demonstrate the methodological and analytical problems that raise concerns about ad hoc theorizing in this field. Using counts of hostile and welcoming immigration legislation (2005–2011), I demonstrate that outgroup size measures correlate positively with both dependent variables while measures of population growth rate yield null results unless used on their own. These results suggest that the use of legislature‐level models with demographic indicators does not allow us to gain a clear understanding of whether and how population dynamics influence immigration policymaking. Based on these findings, I recommend that when using demographic indicators as key explanatory variables, researchers provide evidence of result consistency across multiple model specifications and also test the models with both hostile and inclusive policy variables. Such protocols would help avoid ad hoc theorizing.

Section: Competing Theories and Measures Attached To Demographic Indimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Is “Threat” in the Eye of the Researcher? Theory and Measurement in the Study of State‐Level Immigration Policymaking

Filindra¹

2018

“…The conflicting results might be due to a number of reasons. Differences in coding of the dependent variables are common in this area of research (Gelatt, Bernstein, & Koball, ) and can yield incongruent results (Goodman, ; Monogan, in press). In addition, outcomes rely on counts of laws without regard to variation in the scope of laws, and few analyze policy proposals versus enactment (Ebert et al, ; Filindra & Pearson‐Merkowitz, ).…”

Section: Literature On How Minority Populations Trigger Threat Responmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deportation Discretion: Tiered Influence, Minority Threat, and “Secure Communities” Deportations

Pedroza¹

2018

As deportations from the United States rose to unprecedented levels, a nationwide immigration enforcement program Secure Communities helped identify deportable noncitizens under arrest in county jails. Examining county‐level variation in deportation activity between 2008 and 2013, this paper contributes to immigration policy research by examining how county officials in some locations facilitated exceptionally restrictive deportation outcomes while others exercised the discretion to turn noncitizens over for deportation sparingly. Consistent with a hypothesized “tiered influence” relationship, but contrary to a “racial threat” hypothesis, Hispanic concentration predicts the highest levels of exercised discretion where Hispanic concentration is neither too small nor too large. Noncitizens under arrest seem to have benefited from above‐average Hispanic concentrations, except in counties where Hispanics exceed about 40 percent of the population.

“…We are inspired by Filindra (), employing multiple measures to understand the influences of an out‐group threat. Both Monogan () and Reich () speak to the time‐specific variations of legislation, which is important to understanding policy diffusion. Similarly, we highlight the importance of mixed methodological inference when analyzing the replication of bill text over time and space through varying national circumstances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustained Organizational Influence: American Legislative Exchange Council and the Diffusion of Anti‐Sanctuary Policy

Collingwood

El‐Khatib

O’Brien

2018

Building upon existing literature, we offer a particular model of network policy diffusion—which we call sustained organizational influence. Sustained organizational influence necessitates an institutional focus across a broad range of issues and across a long period of time. Sustaining organizations are well‐financed, and exert their influence on legislators through benefits, shared ideological interests, and time‐saving opportunities. Sustaining organizations' centralized nature makes legislators' jobs easier by providing legislators with ready‐made model legislation. We argue that sustaining organizations uniquely contribute to policy diffusion in the U.S. states. We evaluate this model with a case study of state‐level immigration sanctuary policy making and the role that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) played in disseminating model legislation. Through quantitative text analysis and several negative binomial state‐level regression models, we demonstrate that ALEC has exerted an overwhelming influence on the introduction of anti‐sanctuary legislative proposals in the U.S. states over the past 7 years consistent with our particular model of network policy diffusion. Implications are discussed.