Correction of paper

southeaster n geogr apher, 56(3) 2016: pp. 291–296

S P E C I A L F O R u M O N T H E G E O G R A P H I E S O F

T H E 2 0 1 6 P R E S I D E N T I A L E L E C T I O N

Immigration and the 2016 Election

JAMIE WINDERS Syracuse University

When the lead-up to the 2016 U.S. pres- idential election cycle began in 2015, I expected immigration to be a second- ary issue, a topic that might get periodic mention but would not receive sustained attention. Recent political shifts had trans- formed the rhetoric around immigration, smoothing its sharp edges as debates about immigration were joined by debates about inequality, structural racism, and other themes that have occupied the public eye since the early 2010s. Demographically, the picture of immigration was also chang- ing. Mexicans remain the largest immi- grant group in the U.S., but since the Great Recession, the number of Mexicans coming to the U.S. has been in decline, with more Mexicans leaving between 2009 and 2014 than arriving (Gonzalez-Barrera 2015). In 2014, India was the top immigrant-sending country, with Mexico coming in third after China, and the arrival of unaccompanied Central American children in Summer 2014 seemed to eclipse concerns over un- authorized Mexican immigrants in public discourse. Obama’s presidential executive orders addressing both undocumented immigrants brought here as children and undocumented parents of citizen children suggested a softening national attitude to- ward immigration, as did the move away

from the high point of deportations in 2009. At the state and local level, the flurry of anti-immigrant legislation that I and other scholars were writing about only a few years ago faded after 2012, with fewer states trying to pass laws such as Alabama’s HB 56. For all these reasons, as the 2016 presidential election got under- way, immigration did not seem poised to be the hot-button issue it had been in re- cent years.

Thus, I was taken aback to hear Re- publican candidate Donald Trump an- nounce in Summer 2015 that Mexico sent its “worst elements,” including rap- ists, drug-runners, and criminals (CBS News 2015) to the U.S., that “tremendous infectious disease” poured across the U.S.-Mexico border, and that a “beautiful” wall built between Mexico and the U.S. (and paid for by Mexico) was a necessary solution to the “problem” of immigration (Campbell 2015). I was not surprised to see anti-immigrant rhetoric mobilized in a political campaign or to see a political can- didate make claims that were not based in empirical realities. What was surprising about Trump’s talk of building walls and demonizing Mexican immigrants was how out of step it seemed with the demo- graphic reality of immigration to the U.S.

292 winder s

Trump had taken a page from the past in his view on immigration, hearkening back to both a different demographic moment in U.S. immigration history (the 1990s to early 2000s) and a different political era in U.S. immigration policy (the time of “Op- eration Wetback”). Why was Trump going backwards in time?

This collection of reflections on the 2016 U.S. presidential election coalesces around its geographies, but there are also important temporalities at work. In the context of immigration, two different mo- ments in the wider saga of U.S. immigra- tion dynamics are being mobilized. For Democratic candidates, the temporality of immigration is now. Halting deporta- tions is a key issue linked to keeping im- migrant families together and grounded in a sense of social justice. Supportive of Obama’s executive orders, they see immi- gration through a contemporary lens that locates it as a key part of the American so- cial fabric. For Republican candidates, the temporality of immigration is the 1990s and 2000s, if not before. Trump’s early volley set the tone for other Republican candidates, who have had to prove their own toughness on immigration in relation to Trump’s—how to build a wall to keep Mexicans out (despite the fact that more Americans are heading to Mexico than Mexicans heading to the U.S.) and how to undo Obama’s executive orders. Trump’s references—Arpaio in Arizona, Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” and a border overwhelmed by “illegals” and disease— are throwbacks to public discourse con- cerning immigration in the mid-2000s, if not the mid-twentieth century and before. Switching between Democratic and Re- publican debates is not just moving be- tween two different ideological positions

on immigration. It is moving between two different time periods in the saga of U.S. immigration politics.

This, then, is the picture of immigra- tion in the 2016 fight for the White House, as seen through headlines, debate zingers, and soundbites. What, though, would a closer look at each candidate’s plan show? In 2011, I examined the ways that differ- ent organizations and movements associ- ated with immigration to the U.S. South framed the figure of “the immigrant,” arguing that how immigration itself was understood depended on how different organizations saw immigrants (Winders 2011). This analysis showed a range of framings: attempts to identify a shared humanity between long-term residents and immigrants; attempts to highlight how immigrants are racialized to create black-brown solidarities; attempts to high- light immigrant class oppression to link to wider worker-justice movements; and finally, efforts to foreground immigrant difference to mark and maintain a line be- tween “us” and “them” in anti-immigrant activism.

What would a similar exercise show in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign? How are current candidates framing the issue of immigration? The first thing that this exercise showed is that, in fact, not all of the presidential candidates identify immigration as an issue. Republican can- didate John Kasich, for example, does not include immigration as a campaign focus (John Kasich for America 2016). “National Security” is an issue for him, but in contrast to other Republican candidates, Kasich does not link it to immigration. Although immigration has been a theme in every Republican debate or town hall, it is not a primary topic for all the candidates.

Immigration and the 2016 Election 293

What about the other candidates? For Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, immigration is “a family issue,” and this framing powerfully shapes her approach to it (Hillary for America 2016).1 Undoc- umented immigrants, for her, are “an in- tegral part of America’s social fabric,” and deportation can break up “hardworking, law-abiding immigrant families” who en- rich America. In response, Clinton wants to fight for “an America where every fam- ily feels like they belong here.” Although she makes brief mention of upholding “the rule of law” and protecting borders and national security, her primary push is for comprehensive immigration reform, which will “protect . . . families” by ending family detention, conducting “humane, targeted immigration enforcement,” and promoting naturalization.

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, too, is interested in “A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy,” but his framings of it are slightly different (Bernie Sanders Campaign 2016). As was the case for Clinton, for Sanders, immigration is the story of America (“We are a nation of immigrants”), one “rooted in family and fueled by hope.”2 Sanders, however, sees immigration as much through the lens of labor exploitation as family. His plan in- cludes “whistleblower” visas that protect undocumented immigrants who report labor violations from deportation. While Sanders calls for “humanitarian parole” to return “unjustly deported immigrants and unify broken families,” he puts an equally strong focus on reworking trade agree- ments that harm countries like Mexico. Here, exploited workers both in the U.S. and abroad are front and center. Border security is as much about protecting local communities as policing border flows, and

legalization can proceed without border securitization. Whereas Trump pulls a page from the immigration playbook of the 1990s and 2000s, Sanders goes fur- ther back, reminding us of “the historic role of the U.S. as a protector of vulnera- ble people fleeing persecution,” while also looking abroad to link the plight of immi- grants in the U.S. to American foreign pol- icy in Latin America. Although Sanders’s framing of the U.S. as a nation of immi- grants occludes African-American histo- ries of forced migration and the Middle Passage, his argument that immigration reform must stop “the criminalization of communities of color” places immigration in the wider context of racial-justice move- ments. That reform, for Sanders, must also work across scales, linking wider changes to U.S. foreign policy in places like Latin America and local changes to state laws to his efforts to “integrate immigrants to our society.”

When we turn to the Republican can- didates who identify immigration as an issue, we get a very different picture. Im- migration reform, for Republic frontrun- ner Donald Trump, “will make America great again,” which is another way of say- ing that immigration has made America bad (Make America Great Again! Donald J. Trump for President 2016). Opening with claims about what makes a nation (borders and laws), Trump calls for “real immigration reform” that “puts the needs of working people first.” It is worth point- ing out that by working people, Trump means working Americans, a category defined in opposition to immigrants. As already mentioned, a key part of Trump’s plan is forcing Mexico to finance the con- struction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Until Mexico builds this wall, the

294 winder s

U.S. would “impound” remittances “de- rived from illegal wages.” Trump also calls for the mandatory return of “all criminal aliens.” Here, not surprisingly, we see a shift in language—“immigrants,” “fam- ilies,” and “workers” for Sanders and Clinton, “illegal aliens” and “criminals” for Trump. Where Sanders calls to end the collusion of local law enforcement and federal immigration control, Trump calls for more in the context of local gang task forces, making another discursive link be- tween immigration and crime.

Perhaps most significantly, Trump, like Republican candidate Ted Cruz, calls for the end of birthright citizenship. Where Sanders sees immigrants as potentially exploited workers who merit protection, Trump sees immigrants as threatening American workers who deserve to be put first. Where Sanders identifies immigra- tion policies that prioritize “the sanctity of [immigrant] families” and are “grounded in civic, human, and labor rights” as key to reversing the decline of the middle class (which, for Sanders, includes immigrants), Trump places the decline of the American middle class at the feet of shoddy trade deals and immigration policies (Bernie Sanders Campaign 2016). In contrast to Democratic candidates, Trump makes lit- tle mention of family, with two exceptions: first, “the national family,” which includes some immigrants but is also threatened by low-earning immigrants. Second, Trump obliquely references the family in his plan to raise the admission standards for ref- ugees and asylum seekers and to use the money saved through this change to help place American children without parents in safer homes.

For Republican candidate Ted Cruz, immigration is part of “Secure the Border,”

but his plans for addressing immigration are similar to Trump’s. For Cruz, “Border security is national security,” the “rule of law” must be enforced, “amnesty” must be ended, and the U.S. needs “a wall that works” (Ted Cruz for President 2016). Deportations should increase, and even legal immigration should be reformed, with programs like the H-1B visa halted altogether until unemployment falls for American workers. Cruz’s plan differs from Trump’s, however, in one key re- spect: whereas Trump focuses on immi- grants themselves as the source of prob- lems (they are criminals, terrorists, and so on), Cruz blames a lax border and faulty policies (sanctuary cities, problematic pol- icies related to legal immigration, and so on). Both candidates see immigration as a problem to be fixed, but they differ on what created this problem.

Where does this brief look at candi- dates’ plans leave us? First, it is important to keep in mind that this paper offers a snapshot analysis. It examines how candi- dates framed immigration as an issue (or did not) in April 2016, nearly six months before the election. Much can change be- tween now and November, so it will be im- portant to compare this analysis to what candidates are saying when this paper is published. How will their plans change as the field narrows? In the lead-up to the conventions, will Trump and Cruz attempt to draw clearer distinctions between their ideas about immigration? What about Sanders and Clinton? Where will Kasich fit in this effort? It is significant that Kasich does not identify immigration as a primary issue. Particularly given the rancor over whether Trump will or should become the Republican nominee, what does it mean that the most moderate Republican

Immigration and the 2016 Election 295

candidate has little to say about immigra- tion? Is this an intentional strategy? If so, how will it unfold in the next six months?

Second, as was the case in the organi- zations I examined in 2011, how the can- didates see immigration shapes the kinds of policies they suggest. For Clinton, immi- gration is first and foremost a family issue, leading her to argue for keeping families together and against “inhumane” efforts to separate them. The border comes into the home; thus, being hard on immigration means being against families. For Sanders, immigration is a family issue but is also tightly bound up with labor exploitation and foreign policy. In this way, immigration is not just a domestic issue (in the sense of both borders and the family), but a struc- tural issue linked to transforming foreign policy and free trade. Finally, for Trump, immigration is a hurdle to making America great again. Making America great again means taking it back in time, not only to the 1990s but also to the 1950s—the era of mass deportation and an idealized time of less job competition, safer neighborhoods, and less ethnic and racial diversity. Paying attention to how candidates see immigra- tion as an issue, then, sheds light on how and why they make the policy recommen- dations they do.

Finally, this brief look at candidates’ positions on immigration reminds us of why immigration is perennially an impor- tant issue in the U.S. Immigration links to and shapes ideas about national identity, neighborhood, family, trade policies, and military interventions. It is bound up with the fate of both native- and foreign-born workers and cuts to the core of who we think we are and are not as a nation. I may not have anticipated that immigra- tion would be a key issue in the 2016

presidential elections, but that may be more of an oversight on my part than a reflection on immigration’s place in na- tional politics. Because it touches so many themes, so many lives, and so many places, immigration is always a political issue, no matter the election year.

n ot e s 1. Empirically, immigration is a family issue,

since approximately one-quarter of American

residents are immigrants or the children of im-

migrants (Zong and Batalova 2016).

2. As Barbara Ellen Smith and I have argued

elsewhere (Smith and Winders 2010), framing

the U.S. as a nation of immigrants sits uneasily

vis-à-vis African Americans.

r e f e r e n c e s Bernie Sanders Campaign. 2016. On the

issues: A fair and humane immigration

policy. Accessed 23 April 2016. https://

berniesanders.com/a-fair-and-humane-

immigration-policy/.

CBS News. 2015. Transcript: Donald Trump

announces his presidential candidacy.

CBS News, June 16. Accessed 23 April

2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/

transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-

presidential-candidacy/.

Campbell, C. 2015. Donald Trump is on an

absolute roll after wild week filled with

Twitter fights and heated debates about

rape. Business Insider, July 4. Accessed 23

April 2016. http://www.businessinsider

.com/donald-trump-wild-week-2015-7.

Gonzalez-Barrera, A. 2015. More Mexicans

leaving than coming to the U.S. Pew

Research Center—Hispanic Trends,

November 19. Accessed 21 April 2016.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/

more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-

the-u-s/.

296 winder s

Hillary for America. 2016. Immigration

reform. Accessed 21 April 2016. https://

www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

immigration-reform/.

John Kasich for America. 2016. Accessed 23

April 2016. https://www.johnkasich.com.

Make America Great Again! Donald J.

Trump for President. 2016. Immigration

reform. Accessed 23 April 2016. https://

www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/

immigration-reform.

Smith, B.E., and Winders, J. New pasts:

Historicizing immigration, race, and

place in the South. Southern Spaces: A

Journal about Real and Imagined Spaces

and Places of the US South and their Global

Connections. Accessed 23 April 2016.

http://southernspaces.org/2010/new-

pasts-historicizing-immigration-race-and-

place-south.

Ted Cruz for President. 2016. Secure

the border. Accessed 23 April 2016.

https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/

secure-the-border/.

Winders, J. 2011. Representing the immigrant:

Social movements, political discourse,

and immigration in the U.S. South.

Southeastern Geographer 51(4): 596–614.

Zong, J., and Batalova, J. 2016. Frequently

requested statistics on immigrants and

immigration in the United States.

Migration Policy Institute, April 14.

Accessed 23 April 2016. http://www

.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-

requested-statistics-immigrants-and-

immigration-united-states#Current%20

and%20Historical%20Numbers%20

and%20Shares.

dr. jamie winder s (jwinders@maxwell. syr.edu, @jlwinders) is a Professor in the

Department of Geography at Syracuse

University in Syracuse, New York 13244.

Her research interests include international

migration, racial politics, social reproduction,

cultural, social, and urban geography, with a

special interest in the U.S. South.

Copyright of Southeastern Geographer is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.