It’s perhaps tempting to think that the current hostility to immigration is a modern phenomenon. Maybe it’s something that’s driven by social media or the current wave of populist politicians. Maybe even the greater global mobility or the increase in conflicts and climate change that act as triggers for movement are prompting a backlash?
A recent paper from Stanford highlights how this isn’t really the case, and society’s response to immigration has fluctuated throughout the last century or so. For instance, way back in 1896 Henry Cabot Lodge warned the Senate that the moral qualities of the nation would be endangered by the infusion of people whose traditions were different from their own. It’s a rhetoric that echoes that used by former President Donald Trump in his remarks about Mexicans or Muslims.
Changing attitudes
The researchers utilized artificial intelligence to examine the nature of over 200,000 congressional and presidential speeches on the subject of immigration since 1880 to see if any trends emerged over time. The analysis shows that speeches on the topic actually became more sympathetic in the aftermath of WW2, and have largely remained favorable to the present day.
There has been an apparent divide emerging along party lines, however, as Democratic language has consistently been more sympathetic than Republicans, with this divide opening up originally in the 1960s and widening considerably since the 1990s when Republicans became noticeably more hostile and began to incorporate de-humanizing rhetoric into their language.
“The overall trend in speeches toward immigrants before the 1920s was negative, but it shifted to mostly positive within a single generation—from 1945 to 1965,” the researchers explain. “One thing we find especially striking is that positive sentiment continued in recent decades, even after the border reopened in 1965 and as the flow of immigrants from Central America and Asia has replaced migration from Europe.”
Hostile attitude
The results show that hostility towards immigration remains high among those who oppose it, with Republicans considerably more likely to use language that de-humanizes immigrants. The target of this hostility has changed over time, however, as while Mexicans are the current target, it was Chinese immigrants in the 1800s, when the first immigration restrictions were introduced.
Interestingly, while European immigrants were generally spoken of more favorably back then, this had changed by the mid-20th century, by which time all immigrants tended to be viewed negatively, regardless of where they originated from.
The researchers believe that their approach highlights the potential for AI to support social scientists in their work, and especially to analyze social and political trends over time.
“The ability to analyze 150 years of speeches in such detail is a triumph of modern computing and machine learning,” they explain, “How else would we be able to read millions of speeches?”
Negative rhetoric
Opponents of immigration would often litter their language with words associated with crime, cheap labor, and terrorism, whereas those more sympathetic individuals would use words linked to hard work, community, and humanitarian needs.
The ability to spot de-humanizing language was particularly challenging as it’s often subtle and implicit. The researchers used language models trained on vast quantities of text to develop their algorithm. The models have previously proven very effective at understanding when a word is used in particular contexts.
They highlighted the clear divide between Republican and Democrat politicians, with the last few decades seeing Republicans clearly using more dehumanizing language. This is a noticeable difference, as up until around 1980 the two sides were broadly similar in their tone, whether that was broadly negative in the period until WW2 or broadly positive until the war period up to the mid-1970s.
The 1980s saw a divergence between the two parties, with this accelerating after 2000. Despite this, however, there has been a general degree of positivity towards immigration since the Truman era, with the researchers suggesting this probably reflects the broad benefits immigration brings. Republicans have been moving away from this consensus in the past few decades, however, and have begun to litter their language with hostile rhetoric.
This hostility doesn’t reflect the views of the nation as a whole, where rising positive sentiment has been evident. Indeed, in a recent Gallup poll, 75% of people said that they thought immigration was good for the country.
“Although views toward immigration are more polarized by party than ever before, there is a silent majority that favors immigration. Attitudes toward immigration are more positive now than at almost any time in U.S. history,” the researchers conclude.
