"We cannot allow people to immigrate to our country so they can use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms. [...] It is not unreasonable to demand, if you want to immigrate to America, you must do so legally. You must be ready and willing to embrace our values, learn English, and roll up your sleeves and get to work."
The Context: Jindal bookends his announcement speech by referencing the story of his parents' immigration to the US. He says, "They weren't really coming to a geographical place. They were coming to an idea." At both the beginning and end of the speech, he describes those "looking for a land where the people are free and the opportunities are real." His comments on assimilating into American culture and the country's labor force include a comparison with immigration patterns in Europe, which Jindal insists we cannot allow to replicate in the United States.
Earlier this week, we looked at the landscape of this country's immigrants (the foreign-born population) as well as the prevalence of non-English-speaking households. Moving beyond these, Jindal connects immigration to employment (see our overall employment maps) and raises the issue of immigrant willingness to work. Thus, we asked
How does the willingness to work (measured as labor force participation rate) of immigrants compare to those who were born in the United States? Is this pattern different in metropolitan or larger employment centers across the country?
An additional contextual note: Because we here at Campaign Mapping are concerned with what is said on the campaign trail and how campaign issues and messages are framed, it is worth noting that the rhetorical centerpiece of Jindal's announcement speech is speech itself, presented in two competing forms. On one hand, he repeatedly invokes a motif of speaking truth (to Washington-power). On the other hand he gives considerable attention to the distinction between "talking" and "doing." At one point, he goes so far as to "translate...political speak into plain English."