Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 125–143 | Cite as

Anti-immigration sentiment and public opinion on human trafficking

  • Ieke de VriesEmail author
  • Connor Nickerson
  • Amy Farrell
  • Dana E. Wittmer-Wolfe
  • Vanessa Bouché
Article

Abstract

Prior research shows that anti-immigration sentiment affects public opinion about criminal justice problems and solutions. However, we know little about how these sentiments affect public opinion about human trafficking. This paper attempts to fill this gap by examining the role of anti-immigration sentiment in shaping public support for anti-trafficking efforts in the United States. Specifically, this research examines the effect of anti-immigration sentiment on the public’s understanding about vulnerabilities for human trafficking among migrant populations and corresponding support for policies directed at the protection of migrant trafficked persons. This is particularly important because public policies that safeguard migrant trafficked persons have been among the most difficult to pass despite strong support for the governmental prioritization of anti-trafficking efforts overall. Utilizing public opinion data from an original, nationally representative survey experiment of 2000 Americans, this study finds that anti-immigration sentiment (1) is associated with greater recognition of the vulnerability of immigrants to human trafficking victimization; (2) does not impact public support for a general governmental prioritization of human trafficking policies; yet (3) creates less public support for victim services for non-citizen trafficked persons; and (4) stems from differences in political views impacting support for services for immigrant victims. These findings contribute to an understanding of the role of anti-immigration sentiment in public opinion about crime and have implications for policies aimed at improving the identification of and outcomes for migrant trafficked persons.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The current study was, in part, funded by a Research Scholar Fellowship of the Violence and Justice Research Laboratory at Northeastern University (2017) awarded to the first two authors of this manuscript. The original research was funded by the National Institute of Justice, Grant #2012-MU-CX-0027.

References

  1. 1.
    Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aronowitz, A. A. (2009). Human trafficking, human misery: The global trade in human beings. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bales, K. (2004). Disposable people. New slavery in the global economy. Berkely. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrick, K., & Lattimore, P. K. (2014). Labor Trafficking Victimization among Farmworkers in North Carolina : Role of Demographic Characteristics and Acculturation 1. 2(2), 225–243.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrick, K., Lattimore, P. K., Pitts, W., & Zhang, S. X. (2013). Indicators of labor trafficking among North Carolina migrant farmworkers: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality: National Middle School Association.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berg, J. A. (2009). White public opinion toward undocumented immigrants: Threat and interpersonal environment. Sociological Perspectives, 52(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blinder, S. (2015). Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of ‘immigrants’ in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Political Studies, 63(1), 80–100.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouché, V., Farrell, A., & Wittmer, D. (2016). Identifying Effective Counter-Trafficking Programs and Practices in the US: Legislative, Legal, and Public Opinion Strategies that Work. U.S. Department of Justice: NCJRS.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brayley, H., & Cockbain, E. (2014). British children can be trafficked too: Towards an inclusive definition of internal child sex trafficking. Child Abuse Review, 23(3), 171–184.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brennan, D. (2014). Life interrupted: Trafficking into forced labor in the United States. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42(12), 1150–1152.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chapkis, W. (2003). Trafficking, migration, and the law: Protecting innocents, punishing immigrants. Gender & Society, 17(6), 923–937.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charnysh, V., Lloyd, P., & Simmons, B. A. (2015). Frames and consensus formation in international relations: The case of trafficking in persons. European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 323–351.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114530173.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chuang, J. A. (2010). Rescuing trafficking from ideological capture: Prostitution reform and anti-trafficking law and policy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(6), 1655–1728.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clawson, H. J., Salomon, A., & Goldblatt Grace, L. (2006). Treating the Hidden Wounds: Trauma Treatment and Mental Health Recovery for Victims of Human Trafficking. Treating the hidden wounds: Trauma treatment and mental health recovery for victims of human trafficking. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of, 1–10.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cockbain, E., Bowers, K., & Dimitrova, G. (2018). Human trafficking for labour exploitation: The results of a two-phase systematic review mapping the European evidence base and synthesising key scientific research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–42.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, S. (2001). Immigration controls, the family and the welfare state: A handbook of law, theory, politics and practice for local authority, voluntary sector and welfare state workers and legal advisors: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doezema, J. (1998). Forced to choose: Beyond the voluntary v. forced prostitution dichotomy.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunaway, J., Branton, R. P., & Abrajano, M. A. (2010). Agenda setting, public opinion, and the issue of immigration reform. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 359–378.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Erikson, R. S., McIver, J. P., & Wright, G. C. (1987). State political culture and public opinion. American Political Science Review, 81(3), 797–813.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1989). Political parties, public opinion, and state policy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 729–750.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Espenshade, T. J., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration. International Migration Review, 30, 535–570.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farrell, A., & Fahy, S. (2009). The problem of human trafficking in the US: Public frames and policy responses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 617–626.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.010.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farrell, A., Owens, C., & McDevitt, J. (2014). New laws but few cases: Understanding the challenges to the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking cases. Crime, Law and Social Change, 61(2), 139–168.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garand, J. C., Xu, P., & Davis, B. C. (2017). Immigration attitudes and support for the welfare state in the American mass public. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 146–162.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilliam, F. D., Jr., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560–573.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gilliam, F. D., Jr., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Wright, O. (1996). Crime in black and white: The violent, scary world of local news. Harvard International Journal of press/politics, 1(3), 6–23.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gusfield, J. R., & Schwartz, M. (1963). The meanings of occupational prestige: Reconsideration of the NORC scale. American Sociological Review, 28(2), 265–271.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hagan, J., Levi, R., & Dinovitzer, R. (2008). The symbolic violence of the crime-immigration nexus: Migrant mythologies in the Americas. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225–249.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harell, A., Soroka, S., & Iyengar, S. (2017). Locus of control and anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Political Psychology, 38(2), 245–260.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herzog, S. (2008). The lenient social and legal response to trafficking in women: An empirical analysis of public perceptions in Israel. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(3), 314–333.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ingram, E. M. (2007). A comparison of help seeking between Latino and non-Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(2), 159–171.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jahic, G., & Finckenauer, J. O. (2005). Representations and misrepresentations of human trafficking. Trends in Organized Crime, 8(3), 24–40.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kleemans, E. R. (2007). Organized crime, transit crime, and racketeering. Crime and Justice, 35(1), 163–215.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Koulish, R. (2012). Entering the risk society: A contested terrain for immigration enforcement. Social Control and Justice: Crimmigration in the Age of fear. Haia: Eleven International Publishing, 61–86.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee, J., & Bean, F. D. (2010). The diversity paradox: Immigration and the color line in twenty-first century America: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    MacLeod, L., & Shin, M. (1990). Isolated, afraid and forgotten: The service delivery needs and realities of immigrant and refugee women who are battered: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, Health and Welfare Canada Ottawa.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Major, B., Blodorn, A., & Major Blascovich, G. (2016). The threat of increasing diversity: Why many white Americans support trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1368430216677304.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martinez, R., Jr., & Stowell, J. I. (2012). Extending immigration and crime studies: National implications and local settings. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641(1), 174–191.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McLaren, L., Boomgaarden, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). News coverage and public concern about immigration in Britain. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, edw033.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Murray, J. (2013). Likert data: What to use, parametric or non-parametric? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Theory Into Practice, 15(5), 625–632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367–398.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    RCoreTeam. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
  49. 49.
    Rosseel, Y. (2012). An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rumbaut, R. G., & Ewing, W. A. (2007). The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: Incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Law Foundation.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7(1), 28–33.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sayad, A. (2018). The suffering of the immigrant. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42–61.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 477–504.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simon, R. J., & Alexander, S. H. (1993). The ambivalent welcome: Print media, public opinion, and immigration: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Srikantiah, J. (2007). Perfect victims and real survivors: The iconic victim in domestic human trafficking law. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev, 28, 741.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stolz, B. (2005). Educating policymakers and setting the criminal justice policymaking agenda: Interest groups and the ‘victims of trafficking and violence act of 2000’. Criminal Justice, 5(4), 407–430.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stumpf, J. (2013). The process is the punishment in crimmigration law. The Borders of punishment: Migration, citizenship, and social exclusion, 58–75.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van der Leun, J., & van der Woude, M. (2013). A reflection on crimmigration in the Netherlands: On the cultural security complex and the impact of framing. Social control and justice: crimmigration in the age of fear, 41–60.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wacquant, L. (1999). Suitable enemies' foreigners and immigrants in the prisons of Europe. Punishment & Society, 1(2), 215–222.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wacquant, L. (2005). Enemies of the wholesome part of the nation. Sociologie, 1, 1.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wadgave, U., & Khairnar, M. R. (2016). Parametric tests for Likert scale: For and against. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 67–68.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Watson, B. R., & Riffe, D. (2012). Perceived threat, immigration policy support, and media coverage: Hostile media and presumed influence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(4), 459–479.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wittmer, D. E., & Bouché, V. (2013). The limits of gendered leadership: Policy implications of female leadership on “women's issues”. Politics & Gender, 9(3), 245–275.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X1300024X
  66. 66.
    Zhang, S. X. (2012a). Looking for a hidden population: Trafficking of migrant laborers in San Diego County: United States Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang, S. X. (2012b). Measuring labor trafficking: A research note. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(4), 469–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9393-y.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceColorado CollegeColorado SpringsUSA
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations