Perception of Border Violence
As previously discussed, the theoretical framework for this study is based on several key concepts and theories from the literature on media framing, political bias, immigration, intersectionality, and legal violence. Media framing refers to the way in which news stories are presented to the audience, including the language used, the selection of facts, and the emphasis on particular aspects of an issue (Chong & Druckman 2007). Framing can influence how audiences perceive and interpret news stories, shaping their attitudes and opinions on the issue being covered. Political bias refers to the tendency of news outlets to present information in a way that aligns with their ideological leanings (Massey 2020; Fryberg et al. 2012). This bias can manifest in the selection of stories, the framing of issues, and the language used to describe events. Political bias can influence how news outlets cover immigration-related issues, including border violence.
The literature on immigration and border violence demonstrates that immigration policies, enforcement practices, and public attitudes towards immigrants can all contribute to the prevalence of border violence. The framing of border violence in the media can shape public perceptions of these issues, influencing policy decisions and societal attitudes towards immigrants.
Media Framing
Media outlets often choose which aspects of border-related issues to emphasize, a practice that varies across regions with different political views. For instance, the study by Rodriguez and De Maio (2021) examines how the construction of Donald Trump’s border wall was framed in online newspapers from international border cities, including San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, as well as El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The study reveals differences in framing between U.S. and Mexican newspapers, with U.S. articles focusing more on localized issues such as employment, safety, and activism, while Mexican newspapers emphasize the impact on DACA recipients. This illustrates how U.S. sources tend to highlight standards of a decent life in terms of employment, personal property, safety on the borderlands, and activism, while Mexican sources emphasize family separation and physical division. This demonstrates the role of journalism and media in not only that of contextualizing, but also in shaping public opinion through news frames.
As previously mentioned, Chong and Druckman (2007) provide a foundational understanding of framing theory, emphasizing the importance of elite figures in shaping public opinion. They argue that understanding how competing frames interact is crucial for comprehending opinion formation in mass communication environments. Research shows that media framing affects attitudes toward immigrants and American national identity, indicating a need for awareness of biases in media portrayal of immigration issues. Media framing, influenced by location and political ideology, shapes arguments supporting and opposing anti-immigration bills. Furthermore, exposure to threatening news stories about immigration directly affects attitudes toward immigrants’ human rights (Fryberg et al. 2012; Atwell and Mastro 2015). Additionally, the way the media talks about immigration laws affects how people see immigrants and non-immigrants. In their research Estrada et al. (2016) found two main patterns: when discussing laws that exclude immigrants, the media often talks more about how these laws affect non-immigrants. But when discussing laws that support excluding immigrants, the media often talks more about immigrants being criminals or terrorists.
A study made by Sandra Gomez (2019) examined the representation of Mexican immigrants in newspapers from Mexico and the United States. She found that the media often portrays Mexican immigrants as illegal and criminal, contributing to the construction of stereotypes about them. This negative representation has persisted for more than a century and has been fueled by politicians, as seen in the 2016 presidential campaign. Gomez’s study highlights the importance of critically analyzing media representations of immigrants and the impact they can have on public perceptions and attitudes.
Influencing Political Bias
Additional research shows a narrative that perpetuates a hierarchical and status-based view of membership, with “aliens” portrayed as criminals and outsiders, “immigrants” as weak and vulnerable, and “citizens” as noble contributors. This significantly affects the framing of border violence in news sources, as solidarity emerges from a politicized understanding of border violence, which can be constrained by ideological and legal limitations (Nunez 2014; Sarabia 2020).
Relating to Donald Trump’s presidency, Viladrich (2023) analyzed Trump’s framing of Latinos during COVID-19 times, exploring the role of racism in shaping public perceptions of Latino groups in the United States. Similarly, Abreu et al. (2021) provided a qualitative exploration of the impact of the Trump administration on immigrant Latinx transgender individuals, highlighting the oppressive themes that emerged. Both studies showed the divisive power of Trump’s rhetoric, as it reinforced the stereotypes about Latino immigrants, portraying them as criminals and rapists during his campaign. Immigrants face discrimination and oppression because of the intersection of White supremacy as they are also coping and resisting the current political climate.
A study by Gravelle (2018) proves that there was a shift in attitudes toward US–Mexico border security from 2006 to 2016, amidst the backdrop of the contentious 2016 presidential election and Donald Trump’s pledge to build a border wall. Utilizing spatially-referenced survey data, the study findings underscore partisan and ideological polarization, with Republicans and conservatives favoring greater security measures. This demonstrates how the framing of border violence by US news sources during the Trump administration is a critical topic, especially given the influence of political bias on media narratives.