SEATTLE – People with anti-immigrant sentiments are emboldened after laws designed to punish immigrants are passed, according to a study by a University of Washington researcher.

Rene Flores, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at UW, included fieldwork and people's opinions online to study the immigration debate.

In his most recent research, Flores used Twitter reactions to the controversial "show me your papers" law passed in Arizona in 2010 that allows law enforcement officers to detain anyone they suspect isn't a citizen.

Flores says after the bill passed, rather than pacifying Arizonans, anger against immigrant populations grew.

"Some people, especially those who are more critical of immigrants, began tweeting more,” he points out. “They became energized, they became activated and this was what caused the change in the distribution of sentiment after (the) law was passed. So, it's really in agreement with my own prior research that showed this activation effect."

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several parts of the Arizona law.

While Twitter does not exactly represent the population at large, Flores says it does have value for sociologists. He compares it to a "library of attitudes" that is becoming an important historical archive of opinions.

Flores also explored the role race played in these tweets.

He says people were more hostile toward Latinos before and after the law was passed, but not other racial groups.

"Immigration, it is seen as a Latino issue, despite the fact that, as we know, there's immigrants from all over the world,” he points out. “There's about half a million undocumented European immigrants. "

The racial component of anti-immigrant sentiment could be key to diffusing some of the rage.

Flores says explicitly using race to win elections seemed to be less popular after the civil rights era in the 1960s, but that isn't the case anymore. He says that fact is important for people who support immigrants' rights.

"They have to be mindful of these things,” he stresses. “They have to gain a deeper understanding about the political consequences of this highly charged discourse and also, how these punitive laws themselves could affect the mobilization of people that are against immigrants and immigrants' rights."





get more stories like this via email

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said a bill to require Maine voters to present photo identification in order to cast ballots is unnecessary and could reduce eligible voter turnout.

Bellows testified Monday before the Committee for Veterans and Legal Affairs against Legislative Document 34, noting a new voter ID law would create logistical problems at the polls and place new financial burdens on the state.

"Maine already requires proof of identity and residency at the time of voter registration," Bellows pointed out. "That is a safeguard to ensure that only Maine citizens are participating in Maine elections."

Bellows noted voter ID laws disproportionately impact seniors, people with disabilities, people of color and transgender people, and a voter ID law may undermine trust in the fairness of Maine elections among those communities.

The voter ID legislation is part of a broader effort by Republicans to focus on election security and stems from the perpetuation of unfounded claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Another bill before the Maine Legislature would require voters to update their voter registration every four years.

Bellows argued Maine elections are already free, fair and secure.

"Responding to unfounded fears by passing legislation in response to those fears is not the best way to increase public confidence in our elections," Bellows asserted.

Maine makes it easy to vote, allowing voter registration on Election Day, and consistently ranks as a top state in voter participation.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Wisconsin's primary election is two weeks away, and a high-profile state Supreme Court race is on the ballot.

Several advocacy groups are behind a campaign to educate voters with the hopes of hearing from candidates at public forums.

Political analysts say this race could alter the ideological balance of the court. Conservatives currently hold a 4-3 majority, but the primary features two liberal candidates, along with two conservatives.

Timothy Cordon, chief organizer of the Wisconsin Tour for Justice and Democracy, which will visit regions around the state during the primary and up until the April vote, said they are not endorsing anyone, but added they feel responses are needed for certain topics.

"Issues like reproductive justice, defending our democracy, upholding fair maps - things like that," Cordon outlined.

The maps he cited are political boundaries from redistricting, and Wisconsin's maps have often led to court fights over gerrymandering concerns. The group's tour kicks off today with forums scheduled for Saturday in Milwaukee and a week later in Racine.

Cordon noted if candidates do not appear, they hope to have written comments for the public in a town-hall-style event.

The tour came together under the umbrella of the Building Unity initiative, which works with several groups.

Cordon explained the coalition is nonpartisan when it comes to candidates, but he acknowledged they take policy stances often aligned with progressives. He insisted with the urgency behind some issues, there should not be a political tag.

"We are in terribly dire straits, and if we don't come together as humans who love our children and want to pass on a livable world, we're very likely going to lose the opportunity, and it'll be too late," Cordon contended.

As for abortion access, the state's high court could eventually decide Wisconsin's decades-old ban, which came to light after federal protections were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial races are technically nonpartisan, but political overtones have become more pronounced. Cordon stressed voters have the right to hear from candidates about pressing matters, which he said also include election policy after the fallout from the 2020 presidential vote.

Other forums are likely to be scheduled as the tour moves forward.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

While the Pennsylvania House is still out of session and won't resume until late February, the public and advocacy groups are voicing their concerns.

A statewide listening tour was organized by state House Speaker Mark Rozzi - D-Berks - and his six-member workgroup, to hear from Pennsylvanian about ways to move the state forward on legislative rules.

Fair Districts PA Chair Carol Kuniholm said she spoke about the state Legislature not passing bipartisan solutions. Her group recommends that legislative leaders put rules in place that allow bills with clear bipartisan support to get a vote in committee.

"And then if they are voted out of one chamber with bipartisan support, they should be given a vote in the other chamber," said Kuniholm. "Because what we're seeing is only about one in five bills get considered in committee. Half the bills that get voted out of one chamber are ignored by the other chamber and only about 7% of bills introduced actually get passed."

Fair Districts PA's most recent report shows during the session, members of both political parties signed on as co-sponsors of many bills affecting both rural and urban Pennsylvanians.

Kuniholm added that, however, many of the bills never received votes to move out of committee.

Kuniholm said she and others spoke about bills to address the lack of funding and staffing for firefighters since the 1970s. She added that for two decades, there have been legislative solutions to address the lack of broadband access in rural communities.

She said her organization has been trying to get redistricting reform bills passed, but the leadership has blocked those - even though some have had more co-sponsors than any other bills in the chamber.

"Many people talked about the sexual-abuse statute limitations bill that has been bundled into a constitutional amendment," said Kuniholm. "There were firefighters who talked about the concern for remedies for firefighters, there were people who talked about school funding, and quite a few people talked about gun violence."

Kuniholm said they recommend that there would be a discharge petition, which means if a bill is stuck in committee and has a certain number of signatures, that bill would move directly to the House floor for a vote.

She said a proposal that they put forward is that every legislator would be able to have one priority bill that if they could get at least five co-sponsors from both parties, that bill would be guaranteed a vote.