Framing Irregular Immigration in Western Media

The Context of Unauthorized Immigration

Undocumented migrants live on the margins of the national state system, without formal rights as citizens. They are known to the public as “over stayers,” “failed asylum seekers,” “irregular job seekers,” “sans papiers,” or simply “illegals” and face the constant threat of expulsion at a time when Western democracies have increasingly turned to policies of deportation to control immigration (De Genova & Peutz, 2010). Several scholars argue that the intense focus on irregular immigration in Western democracies is out of proportion and that it ignores many of the complex aspects of migration (Benson, 2013; Horsti, 2007; Suro, 2011; Triandafyllidou, 2010a). Research underscores the fact that undocumented migrants are a far from homogenous group. Stereotypical media portrayals of a Mexican worker illegally crossing the border to the United States or the rejected asylum seeker traveling with smugglers to Europe are not representative of this varied group. Many irregular immigrants move in and out and between different degrees of legal status (Donato & Armenta, 2011; Triandafyllidou, 2010b). Nevertheless, as the articles in this issue will substantiate: Similar slogans, arguments, and standpoints seem to pop up in the news from country to country. The antagonists and protagonists who populate the extremes in these debates, and similar political initiatives to control immigration flows appear in a range of countries, just as migrants cross borders (Carens, 2013; De Genova & Peutz, 2010; King & Wood, 2001). Both in the United States and Europe, the issue of irregular immigration was politicized, from the 1980s to today (Donato & Armenta, 2011). Faced by rising numbers of irregular immigrants, governments in the United States and Europe have tried to curb undocumented migration by enactments focused on deterrence and restriction, criminalization, detention, and expulsion (De Genova & Peutz, 2010; Donato & Armenta, 2011). The solutions and problems related to irregular immigration typically cut across traditional party lines, forming “strange bedfellows” coalitions between seemingly opposed interest groups (Zolberg, 2006). At the same time, the support for more radical anti-immigration parties is increasingly prominent in many European countries (van Spanje, 2010). The rhetoric of these parties has to some extent been adopted by more mainstream parties and governments (Donato & Armenta, 2011; Gastaut, 2012; Marthaler, 2008). In tandem with this development, liberal, grassroot mobilization for the rights of irregular immigrants has taken place, supported by a wide spectrum of NGOs putting forward arguments in favor of liberal immigration reforms and amnesties, fighting deportations, and the detention of individual immigrants (Freedman, 2009; Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014; McNevin, 2011; Nicholls, 2013, Nyers, 2010; Tyler & Marciniak, 2013).

Irregular Immigration in the Media

There have been far fewer studies of the news coverage of irregular immigrants undertaken than its high political salience might suggest (Horsti, 2007). However, the extant literature on the media coverage of immigration and ethnic minorities in general argues that immigration has increasingly been covered through a narrative of “illegality,” reflecting the initiatives and arguments by leading politicians and governments (e.g., Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008; Greenberg & Hier, 2001; Horsti, 2007; Kim, Carvalho, Davis, & Mullins, 2011; Suro, 2011). In both the United States and Europe, the news media have framed the issue of immigration primarily as a law-and-order issue (Benson, 2013), a frame promoted by political officials competing to appear “tough” on unauthorized immigration (Suro, 2011). Nuancing these findings, Benson (2013), in his extensive longitude study of French and U.S. immigration media debates, concludes that, in addition to a predominant law-and-order frame focusing on the need for stricter law enforcement, a humanitarian frame that portrays immigrants as victims of an unfair system is also present in the news. The victim and “rights” frames, focusing on human suffering and human rights, is also documented by Garcia (2008), Suro (2011), and Van Gorp (2005). In their study of how irregular immigration is covered in the news in the United States, Kim et al. (2011) find that, in addition to the dominant enforcement frame, arguments in favor of liberal immigration reforms do also occur. Case studies have documented that individual immigrants occasionally become the focus of the media. Impending deportations, especially of well-integrated victims considered as “deserving” of national membership, have been met by intense media attention (Castaneda, 2006; De Genova & Peutz, 2010; Ellermann, 2006; Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014; Jørgensen & Meret, 2012). The question is still whether the stories of “poster” immigrants and popular protests in the news remain only exceptions to the general framing of irregular migrants as symbols of threats in the news. This query forms the point of departure for the first article in this issue by Figenschou and Thorbjørnsrud (p. 783). By examining the scope of human interest frames focusing on individual immigrants and their challenges in the news, they suggest that the mainstream news media have a more humanistic approach to irregular immigration than the scholarship on media and migration suggests. The second article, by Benson and Wood, (this issue, p. 802) fills another research gap by mapping news sources and their quotes in the coverage of irregular immigration, providing a solid basis for the discussion about who actually gets to speak, whether there are significant differences in source composition between countries, and who, in the end, has the “loudest” voice in the undocumented immigration debate. The third article in this special issue, by Ihlen, Figenschou, and Larsen (p. 822), provides new insights into what it takes for these particular voices and stories to become news by giving a rare look behind the scenes: The article analyzes the media strategies of pro-immigration activists in Norway, while also describing the counterstrategies of the central state immigration authorities.

Public Opinion and the Role of the Media

Robust evidence shows that a majority of citizens in immigrant-receiving countries would prefer more restrictive immigration policies (Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Facchini & Mayda, 2008; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). In a recent overview of the field, Freeman et al. (2013) conclude that many Western democracies may have a democratic deficit, as public opinion is actually in favor of more restrictive immigration enforcement than both current immigration policies and media coverage reflect. Public opinion research finds few consistent factors that can explain these strict attitudes toward immigration apart from the solid conclusion that higher education tends to go together with more liberal views toward immigration, (Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; Freeman et al., 2013). There is, however, wide agreement on the importance of media frames for people’s perceptions and opinions of immigration. Attitudes toward immigration are held to be fundamentally and continually affected by elites and the way their arguments are presented in the media (Dunaway, Goidel, Kirzinger, & Wilkinson, 2011; Fetzer, 2013; Freeman et al., 2013; Lahav, 2013; Salwen & Matera, 1997; Schildkraut, 2013). In their selection process, the media can promote particular wordings and problem definitions, leading the audience toward a certain line of reasoning or interpretation (Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; Lahav, 2013; Scheufele, 1999; Schildkraut, 2013). In light of these arguments, it is striking that so few studies explore the relationships between news discourses and public opinion; we do not know how people actually regard the coverage of irregular immigration. Hence, the two articles in this special issue that explore the intersections between media coverage of undocumented immigration and public opinion are particularly welcome. In their article, Beyer and Matthes (p. 839) provide an analysis of public opinion on irregular immigration and how they relate to people’s general perceptions of the coverage of irregular immigration. Aalberg and Beyer (p. 858), on their side, take a closer look of the impact of human interest stories on the audience; they explore how people evaluate the stories focusing on the plights and challenges of irregular immigrants, and how their evaluations are related to restrictive attitudes to immigration.

Critical and Normative Perspectives on the Role of the Media

The coverage of irregular immigration is contentious and polarized, and so is the metadebate on this media coverage. The bulk of the research done on the coverage of immigration and ethnic minorities purports to be a more-or-less explicit media critique, arguing that the media sustain a distorted, problem-oriented image of immigration by employing metaphors, images, and symbols that create stereotyped portrayals of immigrants or depict immigration as a threat (e.g., Andrijasevic, 2010; Coutin & Chock, 1996; Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008; Horsti, 2007; Santa Ana, 2002; Suro, 2011; Swain, 2007). From the opposite end, some critics argue that the media tend to stay silent about the problems created by immigration, thus serving as mouthpieces for pro-immigrant campaigns. This is an argumentation that is voiced primarily outside academia and mainstream media (for notable exceptions, see McGowan, 2002; Schuck, 2011; Skerry, 1993). The sociocultural distance between media professionals and anti-immigration leaders and activists might play a role in this, giving the latter less space in the media than immigrant advocacy groups (Benson, 2013).

Others again criticize the media not so much for their issue-specific bias as for generic news formats that encourage a sporadic and episodic type of coverage. The argument is that an overt focus on immigrants as individuals neglects other powerful actors and systemic and structural features vital for the understanding of immigration as a phenomenon (Benson, 2013; Suro, 2011).

The diverse and widespread critique against mainstream media coverage of immigration in general, and undocumented immigration in particular, must be seen in light of the central role the news media have in liberal democracies (Keane, 1991). Different models of how journalism should live up to its democratic tasks emphasize different principles and journalistic values. Within an information model, the task of news journalism is first and foremost to provide reliable and accurate information. Neutrality and detachment are key values, and the output of journalism is supposed to make citizens capable of making informed choices (Benson, 2010; McNair, 2009). Another model emphasizes the critical function of the press, where scrutiny of the powerful is the main focus, and protection of the little man against power abuse, a key mission. Other perspectives underscore the role of the news media as mediators and representatives of the views of citizens; yet another model abandons the ideal of neutrality and objectivity by arguing for the need of advocacy journalism, where journalists clearly take a stance and promote a particular view in their reports (Benson, 2010; McNair, 2009).

Even if these models of news journalism are not mutually exclusive, different types of media critique can be raised against the coverage of immigration with reference to each of them. If one puts emphasis on the role of news media as information providers and journalists as mediators, the news media should first and foremost reflect current opinions and official statements in a balanced way, thereby serving as a mirror for the immigration debates. If the media fail to reflect these trends in a balanced and proportional way, critique of undue biases can be raised. A watchdog function, on the other hand, will call for journalists to seek alternative information and to dig for the stories not provided by official sources. Within this model, a key mission is to avoid sustaining the status quo by critically questioning the views of dominant elites. Following a line of advocacy journalism, on the other hand, would call for journalists to take sides in the name of higher values and open up for campaign and activist journalism.

The articles in this special issue all give new empirical bases for evaluating the degree to which some genres, sources, and arguments actually do dominate at the expense of others in the news, and what the possible consequences are. The focus on audience attitudes, moreover, enables a renewed discussion of the possible conflict between the values of journalists and the public’s expectations for the news. The articles provide new reference points for a more profound and informed deliberation of the role of the media and whether they are up to the task of being key providers of different types of information in the debate over irregular immigration. The vital questions about the role of the news media related to immigration are taken up again by two external scholars: Professor Daniel C. Hallin and Professor Christine Jacobsen. They discuss these overarching queries and relate the findings in the articles in this issue to their own expert knowledge on media systems, public debates, and the role of the press in Western democracies (Hallin, p. 876) and the lives and struggles of irregular immigrants from an ethnographic field perspective (Jacobsen, p. 886).

Research Design and Data

Answering the calls for studies of source strategies and framing contests (Vliegenthart & van Zoonen, 2011), comparative media analysis (Blumler & Gurevitch, 2004) and studies on the impact on the audience of news on irregular immigration (Kim et al., 2011), this special issue comprises articles that are based on a closely connected set of multimethod, comparative data, including ethnography, comparative quantitative content analysis of news, and comparative surveys.

The first article in this issue, by Ihlen, Figenschou, and Larsen, has a Norwegian focus and builds on extensive ethnographic fieldwork and 35 qualitative interviews with NGOs and immigration authorities. The next two articles, by Benson and Wood and by Figenschou and Thorbjørnsrud, measure the actual mediated debates on irregular immigration. These news content analyses are based on quantitative content analysis of U.S., French, and Norwegian mainstream media coverage of the issue over a period of 18 months (from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012). Selected for analysis is a sample of national daily newspapers and online news sites.

Three identical surveys were conducted in the three countries during the same period that the news content was sampled. The questionnaire was constructed with close reference to the content analysis codebook. It was based on variables and measures that would render it possible to analyze what respondents thought of the media coverage in general; how they viewed the issue-specific framing of the issue (e.g., if the media focused too much or too little on crime or the humanitarian aspect of irregular immigration). These queries are the focus of the article by Beyer and Matthes. Finally, Aalberg and Beyer analyze how public regards media coverage based on episodic and human interest framing and how their evaluations relate to their opinion on irregular immigration.

The three countries selected for analysis represent Western democracies with different immigration histories and media systems (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Country-specific characteristics related to immigration patterns, the impact of regional and international organizations and agreements, as well as differences in media markets and types of news journalism are taken into account and discussed in the different articles where relevant.

Analytically, this issue builds on theories of frames and framing in the media. Through the construction and employment of different sets of frames, the news media tend to reduce the complexity of an issue by presenting it in an easy-to-understand, interpretive package (Kim et al., 2011), which involves selecting certain aspects of the issue and making them more salient, while leaving out other aspects (Entman, 1993). It is in this selection process that the media can promote a particular problem definition, leading the audience to a certain line of reasoning or interpretation (Scheufele, 1999). The approach takes into account how the generic frames of the media can be exploited by media-savvy sources who will try to promote their interests by fusing their messages with the preferred formats of the media. Strategic actors try to highlight certain elements that can make a frame “strong” and compelling to an audience (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Moreover, the approach pays attention to the fact that the audience might evaluate the generic (the formatting of the content) and issue-specific (the arguments of the content) frames of the media in different ways.

This is a design that answers the call for an integrated framing approach (Entman, 1993; Matthes, 2008, 2012), arguing for the necessity of exploring the framing contests preceding the publishing of news stories, the dominant frames as they actually appear in print and on screen in the different media outlets, and the impact that these actually occurring news frames have on the audience.