PINEDA 1

Yessica Pineda PSC 393 Professor May March 1, 2020

Trump’s Portrayals of Latin American Immigrants in the 2016 Election

The 2016 Election in the United States was seen to be drastically different from any past elections simply due to the fact that for the first time in history, one of the candidates did not have any experience within the political field. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, was nothing more than a businessman and television personality before he was elected as the forty- fifth president of the United States in 2016. One of the biggest aspects of his overall campaign was the creation of a said wall along the Southern border to decrease and possibly put an end to mass incoming immigration from Mexico. Through his use of language, President Trump portrayed the Mexican immigrants to be a sort of plague that the United States had to immediately get rid of.

Due to this proposed policy, President Trump received mass votes which won him the election. Although this seems to be quite irrational, when analyzed through George Lakoff’s,

Moral Politics, it begins to make sense. In George Lakoff’s, Moral Politics, Lakoff pursues to articulate the cognitive linguistics framework through his theory of metaphor. According to

Lakoff, “ One of the most fundamental results in cognitive science…most of our thought is unconscious…In recent years my work has centered on two components of conceptual systems: conceptual metaphors and categories” (Lakoff, 4). Through this statement, it can be seen that PINEDA 2

Lakoff’s theory of metaphor revolves around the fact that individuals tend to think in metaphor form unconsciously. Furthermore, when analyzing President Trump’s rhetoric in his 2016 campaign through George Lakoff’s structured models of the Strict and Nurturant , his negative portrayal of Latin American immigrants in the United States could be explained to be a tactic used to persuade and divide the nation.

In Lakoff’s analysis, Lakoff portrays the to resemble closely to the conservative Republican party. According to Lakoff his ideal Strict Father Model is made up of,

“ A traditional nuclear , with the father having primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall family policy. He teaches children right from wrong by setting strict rules for their behavior and enforcing them through punishment” (Lakoff, 66). This statement furthermore speaks on the structure of the model to be based on the idea of self-discipline and moral strength. To Lakoff, this model furthermore creates a sense of respect and obedience to the nation itself.

On the other hand, the is mostly associated with the Democrat party and the more liberal political spectrum. According to Lakoff, the Nurturant Parent Model is made up of “ A family of preferably two , but perhaps only one… The primal experience being this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one’s desires for loving interactions met… Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected, and through caring for others” (Lakoff, 109). This narrative furthermore enhances the idea of ultimate happiness and moral respect between a community. Unlike the

Strict Father model, the Nurturant Parent model is seen to be structured in a way in which there PINEDA 3 are communication and no hierarchy between child and parent. Furthermore, there is no sort of punishment but rather aid and care coming from the parent’s part.

For the methodology part of the analysis, Lakoff’s method of the Strict Father and

Nurturant Parent will be applied to certain campaign speeches and electoral debates. The main focus will revolve around President Trump’s main proposed policy, the wall. By applying the

Strict Father guidelines to President Trump’s rhetoric, one will be able to discover his reasoning behind his negative portrayal of Latin American immigrants in the United States. By portraying

Latin American immigrants as a danger to society, President Trump manages to receive support from his audience since as stated prior, he is seen to be the strict father who protects his family from danger and in this case, immigrant intruders.

The history of Latin American immigration in the United States has been long and extensive due to the simple reason of the proximity between both countries. From its founding to the 1880s, the United States had an open-door policy with virtually no federal regulation of migration. Individual states sometimes regulated passenger ships and cities enforced residence requirements in poor laws. Both affected migrants’ ability to enter or live in particular places, but in general, people were able to migrate easily in which millions did.

The national origin quota laws of the 1920s and the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, created the third period of “non- migration.” This law had a huge impact on Latin Americans as “in just 40 years, increased from 9.6 million people and 5 percent of the population to 51 million people and 16 percent of the population” (Massey et. Al).

Few migrants were able to enter the United States, so the proportion of immigrants in the country declined dramatically. After World War II, refugees from Europe and from countries in which the PINEDA 4

United States had a foreign policy interest were given entry outside the quotas. The U.S. government also entered into agreements, known as the Bracero program, with Mexico and

Caribbean countries starting in World War II to 1964 to in order to bring in temporary migrants to fill labor shortages. By the 1970s, special refugee admissions would explode, and with the end of bilateral labor agreements, temporary migration would transform into clandestine migration.

In 2008, nearly a third of all immigrants, 30 percent, had entered the United States in 2000 or later; barely two-fifths had lived in the country for more than two decades. Today, Europeans constitute a small minority of the total, while over half of all immigrants were born in Mexico,

Central or South America, or the Caribbean, with Mexicans the largest group. A majority of U.S. residents think most immigrants in the country are illegal. The common belief among the public and many policymakers is that more border control is the best way to deal with undocumented migration, through aspects such as more border patrol officers, more fencing, and more high technology surveillance. Border enforcement was already a priority of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) before the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, but since 2003, when immigration and enforcement were transferred to the new Department of Homeland

Security, policing borders have become deeply intertwined with national security.

Although Latin American immigration has always been regarded to be majorly beneficial to the United States through its collaboration of cheap labor and raise in the economy, that perspective is seen to change through President Trump’s rhetoric. Being a major key player to the

Republican party, President Trump is a perfect fit for the Strict Father model as mentioned above. The majority of President Trump’s campaign in the 2016 Presidential Election revolved PINEDA 5 around the idea of building a wall along the Southern Border. The reason for this being was simply since he wanted to keep Mexican immigrants out of the United States.

Two of the main reasons for this being is that they posed a great threat to the overall

American Identity and that they increased violence in the United States. According to President

Trump, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you.

They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists” (Washington Post). When analyzing this through Lakoff’s Strict Father model, President

Trump’s use of metaphor is emphasized.

To begin, Trump begins every single one of his sentences with the word ‘they’re’. This is a great use of his language as by doing this, he creates the idea of an ‘other’. By doing this,

President Trump instantly creates a sense of fear of the unknown and by using the word ‘us’ he furthermore manages to include the reader in order to feel protected under his leadership. To furthermore continue, he repeats the words of ‘bringing’ and associates it with the following word such as ‘drugs’, ‘crime’, or ‘rapists’ which all have obvious negative connotations and impose a negative feeling upon the reader. Also, by placing the word ‘bringing’ before each negative word, President Trump creates the idea that the reason for those crimes in the nation can be blamed on the people bringing them in from their country.

When placing all of these pieces of analysis together and analyzing them under Lakoff’s

Strict Father model, it can be inferred that President Trump’s creation of the other and his association of Latin American immigrants to negative connotations such as drugs and or crime creates a fear of the ‘other’. It clearly shows that President Trump is pursuing this path of PINEDA 6 metaphor to portray himself as the father who will guard the nation against harm. By portraying

Latin American immigrants as a massive threat who could potentially bring in crime and drugs,

President Trump is seen as a leader and ‘strict father’ who will protect the nation from this threat.

Furthermore, this type of rhetoric and use of metaphor brings more supporters to his campaign as he is seen to be a figure who can deal with threats and keep the individuals in the nation safe.

Although President Trump has great use of rhetoric to persuade and generate voters in the

2016 Election, his words are not always proven to be factual. A 2015 study by the non-partisan

Migration Policy Institute had concluded that around 820,000 unauthorized immigrants had criminal records; however, increasing evidence indicates that immigration does not correlate with higher crime rates. (Zolberg and Woon). Although there is a great number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, there has not been any clear evidence that it exactly correlates along with the high crime rates. Due to this, it can furthermore be emphasized that President

Trump’s rhetoric is manipulated in a way to divide and receive support from the nation.

Although one can only wish that this was the only instance in which the President of the

United States insulted and demeaned the Latin American community, there have been other instances such as:

“I’m talking about Mexico is forcing people in that they don’t want, and they want us to take care of those people.” (on Sean Hannity’s show, July 15, 2015). By the use of the word ‘take care of those people’ and ‘they want us’, President Trump continues to furthermore portray the

Mexican community as another and as an intruder and burden.

“And I had an idea recently. When they send illegals into our country, we charge Mexico

$100,000 for every illegal that crosses that border because it’s trouble.” (On Sean Hannity’s PINEDA 7 show, July 15, 2015). Again seen in this quote is President Trump’s use of ‘they send’ and ‘our country’. Furthermore, by associating Mexican immigrants with trouble and by also placing a large sum of money in the same phrase, the reader or viewer instantly associates both the cost and problems with the identity of a Mexican American. Through rhetoric such as this, President

Trump begins to expose his viewers and followers to associate negative connotations such as economic burden and trouble with a Mexican immigrant.

“Does everyone see that the Democrats and President Obama are now, because of me, starting to deport people who are here illegally. Politics!” (Twitter, December 25, 2015). This quote is quite different from the others simply since it makes an association to the democrat party which under Lakoff’s models was seen to be closely associated with his Nurturant Parent model which emphasized collaboration and respect. Former President Obama served eight years in office in a very hard time where there was still a high concentration in Latin American immigration to the United States following similar issues. However, his response was completely different from President Trump’s. Obama’s campaign not only included a voice and effort to make citizenship easier for immigrants seeking a better future. He even went so far to create

DACA (Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals), also annihilated by the Trump Administration, which is a program designed to help individuals who were brought here at a young age with a working permit and immunity from getting deported for as long as their membership period allowed them to.

However, by associating his rhetoric to that of the Democratic Party, Trump manages to make himself appear to be superior and all-knowing as he looks to be almost as if he knew the solution to the never-ending problem the entire time. PINEDA 8

“Many of the thugs that attacked the peaceful Trump supporters in San Jose were illegals.

They burned the American flag and laughed at police.” (Twitter, June 4, 2016). This quote is seen to be alike the majority, President Trump finds a way to associate Mexican immigrants to a negative connotation to persuade the reader to feel that same hatred and despise towards the

Mexican immigrant. In this case, President Trump is wise as he associates the word ‘peaceful’ with his Trump supporters and the word ‘thugs/illegals’ to refer to the Mexican immigrants. This is instantly problematic as it stereotypes and allows the reader to identify an identity with a certain connotation, and in the case of the Mexican immigrant, it was seen to be negative.

Furthermore, President Trump continues his rhetoric of Mexican immigrants being problematic and criminals as they burned the flag and laughed at the police which is a clear sign of disrespect to the state and nation itself.

“That could be a Mexican plane up there. They’re getting ready to attack,” (Rally in New

Hampshire, June 30, 2016). Lastly, this quote, in particular, is seen to be extremely clever as

Trump not only poses Mexicans to be a threat but he also associates them with a traumatic event:

9/11. By doing so, President Trump associates Mexicans with the Muslim terrorists seen to attack in a similar form in the past. Through this, not only does President Trump a negative feeling of nostalgia upon the reader but he also pushes the reader to prevent an event such as 9/11 from happening again and to do so, the reader must support the leader which in this case is Trump.

Through Lakoff’s, Moral Politics, Lakoff pursues to define and enhance his theory of metaphor in which he refers to the government as the parent and the individuals to be its children. To further this, Lakoff introduces the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models which both speak and reason on the conservative and liberal parties. The Strict Father model is seen to PINEDA 9 be closely related to the conservative spectrum and is seen to value obedience and respect.

Overall, when placing Lakoff’s theory of metaphor upon modern policy such as immigration, it is clear that his model creates a perception of the division of not only the parties but the values and symbols that they stand for.

This sequence of historical events has countless consequences in the present. However, politicians, major media, and U.S. citizens only see the faces of children, men and women speaking a foreign language. President Trump’s political discourse portrays immigrants as invaders who seek to take advantage of the services and benefits of American democracy, which strips immigration politics of its actual purpose. It is a false logic that creates hardworking into thieves and it also creates the idea of welfare abusers when in fact immigrants sustain the economy with their labor and their taxes. In a recent interview with Aviva Chomsky about the current myths that dominate the social narrative in the United States today, she explains: “I’d say there are two [myths]: one, that immigrants are criminals, and two, that immigrants come here to take advantage of the United States. In a way, these are connected—by turning immigrants into ‘bad hombres,’ Trump helps to erase history and the disasters that U.S. policy has helped to create in the countries that immigrants are currently fleeing, especially in

Central America.” (Chomsky).