English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This research probes the voting behavior of the Congressional Border Caucus in the U.S. House after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These attacks raised the consciousness of Congress, the media, and the public about the U.S-Mexico border and put the policy interests of the Border Caucus in the national spotlight. After the attacks, did caucus members adhere more closely to caucus positions that were important to border districts or more regularly vote against them? House votes on border and non-border amendments before and after the terrorist attacks are examined to determine if caucus members rallied to support the caucus majority on votes important to the border region after the attacks, or if factors such as party and ideology were more important influences on their votes. The findings reveal that Caucus members were indeed more supportive of border-related House amendments than non-Caucus members after the attacks. Yet, party and ideology still played a significant role in determining the votes of caucus and non-caucus members.

Border Politics in the House: The Influence of the Congressional Border Caucus on Member Votes