Iron Ridge Creative

Every Frame with Intention

The Border Crisis: A Divisive Social Media Issue With Little Chance of Consensus

Originally written for COM 638 – Strategic Communication for Global Audience at Queens University of Charlotte

Introduction

As with many political issues in the United States of America, there is always a debate. In the past, we consistently took to the streets in large numbers to protest these issues. With the rise of social media over the past two decades, it seems as though less and less boots have hit the ground in the name of political activism. Now, we can be a political activist as long as we have some sort of keyboard in front of us. If we feel strongly about an issue or disagree with someone else’s opinion, distance and other physical limitations do not stop us from saying whatever we want to say.

In the words of blogger Wilkes (2016), “the Internet has connected us and broken us.” We are closer together than ever before, but in some ways, also further apart.

With the 2020 presidential election fast approaching at the time of this study, I believed the relationship between social media and political sensemaking deserved an examination. Is it helping us understand the issues and each other better or are we being more divided by it? At the beginning of this research, I tended toward the latter. The physical barrier created by our screens — no matter which identity we choose to share on social media — seems to prod many of us toward name-calling and anger.

However, I also believed there were examples of healthy political discussion somewhere on social media. My goal was to seek out conversational examples from multiple perspectives in an effort to understand how we can best use social media across the world.

To narrow the focus, I chose a recent political issue that everyone seemed to be discussing at the time: the border crisis between the United States and Mexico. While the nuances of this issue may not speak for the broader state of political activism, it remains one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics. By analyzing this conversation specifically, I hoped to discover why people feel so strongly about the issue and whether any meaningful consensus is possible in today’s social media environment.  

Social Media and Political Communication

When we think about social media, we think about platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. We send friend requests, tweet what is on our minds, and share digital media through these social media platforms. We connect with close friends and communicate with complete strangers, all from the comfort of our connected devices.

As Hamelink (2015) argues, “the use of words such as ‘friends’ and ‘participation’ reinforces the suggestion of a cooperative and non-commercial venture that primarily uses the global public sphere to promote democratic values” (p. 227). However, it would be wise to acknowledge the inherently commercial nature of these platforms. More often than not, we forget that these websites exist to make money.

As van Dijck (2013) proclaims, “[i]f the world lets Facebook define the norms of sociality online, it will build a world powered by Facebook” (p. 67). Rather than assuming everything on social media is freely shared and socially motivated, we should recognize platforms like Facebook and Twitter as “facilitators of commercial connectivity in a global corporate sphere” (Hamelink, 2015, p. 227). Only then can we critically analyze the information and communication patterns that emerge within them.  

Despite their commercial interests, social media platforms have undeniably ushered in a new era of political communication. We no longer need to attend rallies or turn on television broadcasts to hear political rhetoric. Videos, pictures, and opinions are now distributed instantly across countless digital channels.

Yet increased connectivity does not necessarily produce healthier political engagement. Velasquez and LaRose (2015) suggest that political participation through social media “demands the possession of certain skills, as well as the perception of the capability to effectively use those skills” (p. 468). Even though users are more connected than ever before, many may not feel equipped to discuss political issues online or offline.

This uncertainty is further intensified by information overload. Social media users are constantly exposed to both truths and misinformation, leading many to seek information that reduces uncertainty and validates existing beliefs (“When scientists tweet for social changes,” 2017). Reliable information, whether through news articles or academic studies, often becomes a tool users employ to reinforce the credibility of their arguments.  

Research Questions

Through the method of grounded theory, as demonstrated by Charmaz (2014), this research sought to answer the following questions:

1. What themes, if any, emerge from a content analysis of tweets referencing #bordercrisis from July 13, 2019 to July 20, 2019?

2. What do these themes suggest about the broader practice of utilizing social media for local and/or global strategic communication?

Methodology

Sample

This study used Twitter to gather a data set of tweets referencing the hashtag #bordercrisis. All examined tweets were public and viewable by anyone with a Twitter account.

To narrow the search, only tweets sent on Saturday, July 13, 2019 or Saturday, July 20, 2019 were examined. Even within that one-week span, there were over 250 tweets available for analysis. Across political ideologies, these tweets appeared overwhelmingly fueled by anger. Twitter users expressed frustration surrounding the border crisis and frequently held politicians responsible for its persistence.

The goal of the study was to understand how the emotional intensity surrounding the issue influenced communication both locally and globally.  

Procedure

Using grounded theory methods outlined by Charmaz (2014), the research process began by identifying what she describes as “rich data” — information that reveals participants’ views, feelings, intentions, and actions.

The initial coding process focused on assigning descriptive codes to the tweets without categorizing users strictly by political ideology. Examples of coding included phrases like “respect for the law” and “acknowledging suffering.” Rather than labeling users as liberal or conservative, the analysis focused on the emotions and actions embedded within the tweets themselves.

Focused coding then identified broader patterns and themes emerging across the data set. Axial coding helped connect categories to underlying motivations and experiences, while theoretical sampling allowed these themes to develop into broader theoretical conclusions regarding social media communication and political discourse.  

Results

After the axial coding process, several distinct themes emerged from the data set. These themes reflected the emotions and intentions users conveyed either consciously or unconsciously through their tweets.

Historical Comparisons

Users frequently compared detention centers at the southern border to Nazi concentration camps. One recurring example involved images of then–Vice President Mike Pence standing near detained migrants juxtaposed against historical photographs from World War II.

Some tweets included direct hostility, while others attempted more reflective commentary:

“History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

This category included references to historical tragedies and comparisons between modern political leadership and past authoritarian behavior.  

Blaming Partisanship

Another major theme involved assigning blame to opposing political parties. Users frequently portrayed their own political side as blameless while accusing the other party of causing or worsening the crisis.

Examples included accusations that Democrats failed to secure the border and claims that Republicans ignored humanitarian concerns.

These posts existed on both sides of the political spectrum and often involved partisan name-calling or emotionally charged rhetoric.  

Hypocritical Leadership

Users also highlighted instances where political leaders appeared inconsistent with their previous positions on immigration and border policy.

Tweets frequently resurfaced older statements from political figures such as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to argue that both political parties had, at various points, supported stricter immigration positions.

This category focused less on policy itself and more on exposing perceived hypocrisy and inconsistency among political leaders.  

Inhumane Conditions

Many tweets focused on the conditions within migrant detention centers and argued that migrants were being denied basic human rights.

These posts often included emotional language emphasizing morality, compassion, and human dignity.

Unlike the historical comparison category, these tweets focused more directly on current humanitarian concerns and living conditions at the border.  

Additional Themes

Additional themes included:

  • Fear surrounding ISIS and border security
  • Prioritizing the rule of law
  • Criticism of Congress and immigration agencies
  • Calls to abolish ICE
  • Concerns about media narratives surrounding the crisis

Taken together, these themes revealed a deep-seated anger present in nearly every discussion surrounding the #bordercrisis issue.  

Discussion

Through analysis of these tweets, it became apparent how emotionally charged political discourse becomes on social media platforms. Hamelink (2015) argues that modern media often “accentuate[s] the sensational, dramatize[s] social reality, and decontextualize[s] developments” (p. 172), which contributes to increasingly polarized online communication.

Research from the International Communication Association (2018) similarly found that emotionally charged content — especially anger — tends to generate more reactions and visibility on social media platforms. This creates what could best be described as a negativity feedback loop, where outrage fuels engagement and engagement amplifies outrage.

During the research process, more balanced or moderate perspectives consistently received far less attention than inflammatory content. One tweet that stood out attempted to reframe the conversation through empathy rather than partisanship:

“Taking care of children has nothing to do with politics. I think perhaps with time, instead of there being a politicization of humanitarian aid, there will be a humanization of politics.”

Despite its measured tone, the post received little engagement compared to more divisive content.  

Social media platforms also encourage the formation of what Fraser (1997) describes as “subaltern counter-publics” — parallel communities where users circulate ideas and reinforce shared ideological viewpoints. These spaces create environments where individuals feel validated by like-minded users while becoming increasingly entrenched in their own political perspectives.

Under these conditions, meaningful consensus surrounding controversial political issues becomes increasingly difficult to achieve.  

Media Literacy and the Future of Political Communication

Despite the divisiveness observed throughout this study, there remains hope for healthier communication online. However, that hope depends heavily on media literacy.

Participatory media requires individuals to engage with people from different cultures, socio-economic backgrounds, and belief systems. If users are unwilling to acknowledge those differences, online discourse quickly devolves into hostility and dehumanization.

According to Mihailidis (2013), media literacy should be viewed as a lifelong process and “a critical competency” necessary for participating in modern communication environments.

Media literacy involves more than identifying misinformation. It also requires users to:

  • Recognize emotional manipulation online
  • Understand algorithmic bias
  • Engage thoughtfully with disagreement
  • Maintain empathy during conflict
  • Seek common ground despite ideological differences

If social media is to become a healthier communication environment, these skills will be essential moving forward.  

Conclusion

There is no doubt that social media plays a major role in modern global communication, but whether that communication can truly be considered healthy remains uncertain.

Van Dijck (2013) suggests that perhaps “connectivity media” is a more accurate term than “social media,” as many online interactions prioritize engagement over genuine social understanding.

The border crisis demonstrated how quickly social media conversations can become emotionally entrenched and politically polarized. Yet it also revealed moments of empathy, reflection, and humanity beneath the outrage.

If there is hope for healthier discourse online, it likely begins with recognizing the humanity behind opposing viewpoints and learning to engage with differences rather than retreating from them.

References:

Discover more from Iron Ridge Creative

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading