A comparative study of framing immigration policy after 11 September 2001

Abstract

Immigration policy studies often assume the relevance of path dependency or contingency. This study weighs institutional changes, party changes and media as factors potentially driving immigration policy shifts after 11 September 2001. In spite of change with each of these factors, immigration policy debate in the USA and Canada presents framing as a vehicle for absorbing exogenous shock while maintaining consistency in terms of immigration policy orientation. The USA and Canada converge after September 11 in filtering immigration through the lens of terrorism. However, in the longer run political representatives in Canada frame terrorism around human rights issues and thereby return immigration to its distinct and familiar policy orientation of openness and inclusiveness. Historically, border security, which has been narrowly defined in terms of illegal immigration, and the economy compete for salience around US immigration policy. After September 11 US representatives frame terrorism around security issues that expand much further beyond illegal immigration, and strongly reinforce this particular security dimension of its immigration policy orientation.

Keywords:

• terrorism
• immigration policy
• economy
• policy change
• human rights

Acknowledgements

I thank Roger Waldinger, Asli Ilgit and the NEH summer seminar at UCLA (2011) for their insights throughout the editing stages, Stephanie Michel for her library assistance, and my colleague Anne Santiago for reading the article in its final stages.

Notes

1. Kruger, Mulder and Korenic cite Ipso News Centre, Research, Opinions and Insight, 2004, available at www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2042