Who Matters Most? Congressional Responsiveness and Immigration Policymaking.

Abstract

This dissertation examines the factors that affect how legislators respond when faced with immigration policy matters. In contrast to previous theories of immigration policymaking, I propose that public opinion affects how legislators respond, particularly in areas experiencing large demographic change due to immigration. Legislators respond to public opinion because they first and foremost are motivated by electoral concerns. Therefore, they are most responsive to those constituents whose votes can help them win reelection, and are least responsive to immigrant constituents in their districts who cannot vote. I test this theory by examining how public opinion and demographic change affected legislators’ roll call votes on key immigration bills and legislators’ cosponsorship of immigration bills in the 109th Congress. I use public opinion data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Study and demographic indicators from the 2005 American Community Survey. I also test other alternative explanations of how legislators respond to immigration policy issues, including the effect of minority legislators, economic interests that depend on immigrant labor, and racial threat. I find that legislators are responsive to public opinion when deciding immigration policy issues, whether they are voting on immigration bills or cosponsoring immigration legislation. The effect of public opinion is more salient in areas experiencing large demographic changes from immigration; however, this effect differs between Democratic and Republican legislators. I also find support for alternative explanations, particularly among minority legislators and economic interests, but these effects are mixed and depend on the type of bill proposed.