“And some, I assume, are good people”: Determinants of elites’ strategic discourse about immigrants and refugees

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
João V. Guedes-Neto , Alex Honeker
{"title":"“And some, I assume, are good people”: Determinants of elites’ strategic discourse about immigrants and refugees","authors":"João V. Guedes-Neto ,&nbsp;Alex Honeker","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2025.102952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Using computational text analysis of US representatives’ tweets during the 2020 election campaign, we examine how geographic representation–specifically, the demographic characteristics of districts–moderate rhetoric about immigrants and refugees. While Republicans are overall more negative toward immigrants than Democrats (but not toward refugees), when it comes to salience, Democrats show strategic communication tailored to the ethnic composition of their districts. In districts that are predominantly non-Hispanic, whiter, and more rural, Democratic representatives reduce the salience of immigrants and refugees in their messages, while increasing it as the share of the Hispanic population rises. This strategic use of salience is not observed in Republican legislators’ tweets. We also find that while Democrats use the terms “immigrant” and “refugee” interchangeably when discussing migrants from the southern border, Republicans’ greater positivity toward refugees responds, in part, to using the term for potential Hong Kong refugees, likely deemed as more deserving of protection. These findings highlight elites’ strategic messaging on immigration and how legislators navigate intraparty politics to satisfy the preferences of their party and constituents.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"96 ","pages":"Article 102952"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000587","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using computational text analysis of US representatives’ tweets during the 2020 election campaign, we examine how geographic representation–specifically, the demographic characteristics of districts–moderate rhetoric about immigrants and refugees. While Republicans are overall more negative toward immigrants than Democrats (but not toward refugees), when it comes to salience, Democrats show strategic communication tailored to the ethnic composition of their districts. In districts that are predominantly non-Hispanic, whiter, and more rural, Democratic representatives reduce the salience of immigrants and refugees in their messages, while increasing it as the share of the Hispanic population rises. This strategic use of salience is not observed in Republican legislators’ tweets. We also find that while Democrats use the terms “immigrant” and “refugee” interchangeably when discussing migrants from the southern border, Republicans’ greater positivity toward refugees responds, in part, to using the term for potential Hong Kong refugees, likely deemed as more deserving of protection. These findings highlight elites’ strategic messaging on immigration and how legislators navigate intraparty politics to satisfy the preferences of their party and constituents.
“我想,有些人是好人”:精英们关于移民和难民的战略话语的决定因素
通过对2020年大选期间美国众议员推文的计算文本分析,我们研究了地理代表性——具体来说,是地区的人口特征——如何缓和有关移民和难民的言论。虽然共和党人总体上对移民的态度比民主党人更消极(但对难民的态度并非如此),但在突出性方面,民主党人表现出了针对其选区种族构成量身定制的战略沟通。在以非西班牙裔、白人和更多农村人口为主的选区,民主党代表在他们的信息中减少了移民和难民的重要性,同时随着西班牙裔人口比例的上升而增加了移民和难民的重要性。在共和党议员的推文中,并没有看到这种策略性的突出性运用。我们还发现,虽然民主党人在讨论来自南部边境的移民时交替使用“移民”和“难民”这两个词,但共和党人对难民的更积极态度在一定程度上回应了他们将这个词用于潜在的香港难民,他们可能被认为更值得保护。这些发现突出了精英们在移民问题上的战略信息,以及立法者如何驾驭党内政治,以满足本党和选民的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信