Suchergebnisse

"Chris Haynes and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan also move beyond the issue of political participation to investigate immigrants' knowledge of politics in the United States. Though it is a key component of citizen competence, political knowledge has rarely been studied in the context of immigrant political integration. Recognizing that immigrants are not a homogeneous group, Haynes and Ramakrishnan describe the levels of knowledge of American politics among the three main ethnic-minority groups in the United States – namely, Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans. Haynes and Ramakrishnan also provide an innovative approach to the field of immigrant political integration by examining the role of the ethnic media in structuring the levels of knowledge of American politics among these three groups; this is an increasingly salient question in the United States with the growth in the number and popularity of such media." – Antoine Bilodeau, from book introduction

Presidential candidates provide a boost to their congressional candidate counterparts, in which congressional candidates should ride the proverbial coattails into office (Campbell and Sumners 1990; Stewart 1989). The 2016 election, however, provides an instance in which the presidential coattails were less than desirable. In this article, we argue that state politics determines the optimal strategy for how candidates should position themselves vis‐à‐vis a controversial presidential candidate. Based on our findings, voters rewarded candidates at varying levels for distancing themselves from then candidate Trump. Specifically, the disloyal strategy, in which candidates completely disavowed Trump, worked best in swing states and among Democrats, liberals, and Clinton voters. The ambiguous strategy, in which candidates took an unclear position on Trump, was less effective, but still received gains in appeal among independents and liberals.

Presidential candidates provide a boost to their congressional candidate counterparts, in which congressional candidates should ride the proverbial coattails into office (Campbell and Sumners 1990; Stewart 1989). The 2016 election, however, provides an instance in which the presidential coattails were less than desirable. In this article, we argue that state politics determines the optimal strategy for how candidates should position themselves vis‐à‐vis a controversial presidential candidate. Based on our findings, voters rewarded candidates at varying levels for distancing themselves from then candidate Trump. Specifically, the disloyal strategy, in which candidates completely disavowed Trump, worked best in swing states and among Democrats, liberals, and Clinton voters. The ambiguous strategy, in which candidates took an unclear position on Trump, was less effective, but still received gains in appeal among independents and liberals.

For the last decade, undocumented or illegal immigration has been one of the most contested policy issues in the United States, with significant news attention on policies affecting the undocumented population, ranging from deportations to comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Despite these prominent and multifaceted policy debates, scholarship on media framing and public opinion remain more focused on the portrayal of immigrants rather than policies affecting them. In general, we find that policy frames are far more consequential to public opinion than equivalency frames (variations in how news media describe unauthorized immigrants, either as "illegal" or "undocumented") or episodic frames (whether news articles are heavy on human-interest stories rather than policy facts and statistics). In addition, negative frames generally have stronger effects than positive frames, and these effects sometimes vary by partisanship and family migration history. Finally, the relative infrequency of powerful frames in news stories, like time spent living in the United States, provides opportunities for advocates to move public opinion on immigration policy. These findings have important implications for future battles over immigration policy in the United States, which show no signs of abating.

AbstractFor the last decade, undocumented or illegal immigration has been one of the most contested policy issues in the United States, with significant news attention on policies affecting the undocumented population, ranging from deportations to comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Despite these prominent and multifaceted policy debates, scholarship on media framing and public opinion remain more focused on the portrayal of immigrants rather than policies affecting them. In general, scholars find that policy frames are far more consequential to public opinion than equivalency frames (variations in how news media describe unauthorized immigrants, either as "illegal" or "undocumented") or episodic frames (whether news articles are heavy on human‐interest stories rather than policy facts and statistics). Also, negative frames generally have stronger effects than positive frames, and these effects sometimes vary by partisanship and family migration history. Finally, the relative infrequency of powerful frames in news stories, like a life spent in the United States, provides opportunities for advocates to move public opinion on immigration policy. These findings have important implications for future battles over immigration policy in the United States, which show no signs of abating.

"While undocumented immigration is controversial, the general public is largely unfamiliar with the particulars of immigration policy. Given that public opinion on the topic is malleable, to what extent do mass media shape the public debate on immigration? In Framing Immigrants, political scientists Chris Haynes, Jennifer Merolla, and Karthick Ramakrishnan explore how conservative, liberal, and mainstream news outlets frame and discuss undocumented immigrants. Drawing from original voter surveys, they show that how the media frames immigration has significant consequences for public opinion and has implications for the passage of new immigration policies. The authors analyze media coverage of several key immigration policy issues—including mass deportations, comprehensive immigration reform, and measures focused on immigrant children, such as the DREAM Act—to chart how news sources across the ideological spectrum produce specific "frames" for the immigration debate. In the past few years, liberal and mainstream outlets have tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as "undocumented" (rather than "illegal") and to approach the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, tend to discuss legalization using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. Yet, regardless of the media's ideological positions, the authors' surveys show that "negative" frames more strongly influence public support for different immigration policies than do positive frames. For instance, survey participants who were exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers seeking "amnesty" tended to oppose legalization measures. At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants living in the United States for a decade or more. Framing Immigrants shows that despite heated debates on immigration across the political aisle, the general public has yet to form a consistent position on ...

Immigration has been a salient and contentious topic in the United States, with a great deal of congressional debate, advocacy efforts, and media coverage. Among conservative and liberal groups, there is a vigorous debate over the terms used to describe this population, such as "undocumented" or "illegal," as both sides perceive significant consequences to public opinion that flow out of this choice in equivalency frames. These same groups also compete over the ways in which immigration policies are framed. Here, for the first time, we examine the use of both types of frames (of immigrants themselves, and the policies affecting them) in media coverage. Importantly, we also test for whether these various frames affect preferences on three different policies of legalization. Our results suggest that efforts to focus on the terms used to describe immigrants have limited effect, and that efforts to frame policy offer greater promise in swaying public opinion on immigration.

While undocumented immigration is controversial, the general public is largely unfamiliar with the particulars of immigration policy. Given that public opinion on the topic is malleable, to what extent do mass media shape the public debate on immigration? In Framing Immigrants, political scientists Chris Haynes, Jennifer Merolla, and Karthick Ramakrishnan explore how conservative, liberal, and mainstream news outlets frame and discuss undocumented immigrants. Drawing from original voter surveys, they show that how the media frames immigration has significant consequences for public opinion and has implications for the passage of new immigration policies. The authors analyze media coverage of several key immigration policy issues -- including mass deportations, comprehensive immigration reform, and measures focused on immigrant children, such as the DREAM Act -- to chart how news sources across the ideological spectrum produce specific "frames" for the immigration debate. In the past few years, liberal and mainstream outlets have tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as "undocumented" (rather than "illegal") and to approach the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, tend to discuss legalization using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. Yet, regardless of the media's ideological positions, the authors' surveys show that "negative" frames more strongly influence public support for different immigration policies than do positive frames. For instance, survey participants who were exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers seeking "amnesty" tended to oppose legalization measures. At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants living in the United States for a decade or more. Framing Immigrants shows that despite heated debates on immigration across the political aisle, the general public has yet to form a consistent position on undocumented immigrants. By analyzing how the media influences public opinion, this book provides a valuable resource for immigration advocates, policymakers, and researchers. CHRIS HAYNES is assistant professor of political science at the University of New Haven. JENNIFER MEROLLA is professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside S. KARTHICK RAMAKRISHNAN is professor of public policy and political science at the University of California, Riverside

Non-indigenous animal species threaten biodiversity and ecosystem stability by damaging or transforming habitats, killing or out-competing native species and spreading disease. We use World Heritage Area Kakadu National Park, northern Australia, as a focal region to illustrate the current and potential threats posed by non-indigenous animal species to internationally and nationally recognised natural and cultural values. Available evidence suggests that large feral herbivores such as Asian swamp buffalo, pigs and horses are the most ecologically threatening species in this region. This may reflect the inherent research bias, because these species are highly visible and impact primary production; consequently, their control has attracted the strongest research and management efforts. Burgeoning threats, such as the already established cane toad and crazy ant, and potentially non-indigenous freshwater fish, marine invertebrates and pathogens, may cause severe problems for native biodiversity. To counter these threats, management agencies must apply an ongoing, planned and practical approach using scientifically based and well funded control measures; however, many stakeholders require direct evidence of the damage caused by non-indigenous species before agreeing to implement control. To demonstrate the increasing priority of non-indigenous species research in Australia and to quantify taxonomic and habitat biases in research focus, we compiled an extensive biography of peer-reviewed articles published between 1950 and 2005. Approximately 1000 scientific papers have been published on the impact and control of exotic animals in Australia, with a strong bias towards terrestrial systems and mammals. Despite the sheer quantity of research on non-indigenous species and their effects, management responses remain largely ad hoc and poorly evaluated, especially in northern Australia and in high-value areas such as Kakadu National Park. We argue that improved management in relatively isolated and susceptible tropical regions requires (1) robust quantification of density–damage relationships, and (2) the delivery of research findings that stimulate land managers to develop cost-effective control and monitoring programs.

Scholars and Southern Californian Immigrants in Dialogue: New Conversations in Public Sociology employs public sociology to bring together academics and undocumented voices in vibrant conversation about immigration in Southern California. The dialogue offers compelling insights concerning reasons for immigration and what happens to Latinos/as when they migrate to the United States.