Ebola, elections, and immigration: how politicizing an epidemic can shape public attitudes

Ebola emerged on U.S. soil during the 2014 midterm election campaign, and the threat of infectious disease became prominent in political rhetoric. African immigrant communities experienced stigma and suspicion during the outbreak. This study investigates the implications of this epidemic on immigration attitudes. We fielded a survey experiment during the Ebola crisis with a sample of 3881 adults in the United States to examine the conditions under which global health threats affect domestic attitudes on immigration. Contrary to expectations, we find that the mere mention of Ebola has no effect on immigration attitudes, even when the identity of the Ebola carrier is described as an African traveler into the United States. Our results show, however, that politicizing the crisis can lead to more exclusionary attitudes toward immigrants. This finding is driven by partisanship: views of immigration were significantly more negative when Republican participants read a statement by a Republican politician critical of President Obama's Ebola response. The study has implications for future epidemics, including the important role political entrepreneurs can play in shaping public perceptions during a disease outbreak. The results raise concerns about how political rhetoric surrounding disease can have both short-term and longer term consequences for vulnerable populations.