Talking immigration: A rhetorical analysis of United States Senate debates, 1924 - 1965 - 1996

This dissertation is a study of political communication about immigration in the United States during the twentieth century. Its purpose is to gain better understanding of the interaction between political language and immigration control from a rhetorical perspective by asking, What is the role of metaphor in the strategic representation of immigration? Central to my thesis is that policymakers use political metaphors to construct alien others, to propose ways to control them, and to shape goals to justify and legitimate restrictive policies. The study inventories immigration metaphors as they evolve across Senatorial debates in 1924, 1965, and 1996. I conduct rhetorical analysis to inventory the structure of metaphor usage by devising an input-output rhetorical model to classify metaphors according to their roles in problem definition (rhetorical inputs), control solutions (rhetorical throughputs), and the shaping of political goals (rhetorical outputs). I conclude that the rhetorical processes of immigration threat construction and control give the U.S. government the appearance of autonomy, authority, and power by reflecting and reinforcing territorial integrity, national identity, and state interest. I close with the speculation that the September 11 th terrorist attacks renewed and reframed the rhetoric behind measures to enhance U.S. border policing and immigration control. The most restrictive, intrusive, and intimidating of current policy proposals were originally amended out of the Immigration Act of 1996 or never fully implemented. Today's renewed effort to intimidate immigrants opens the way for significant intrusions into the civil liberties of immigrants and citizens alike.