Mobilizing African Americans for immigrant rights: Framing strategies in two multi-racial coalitions

Original Artic le

Mobi l iz ing Afr ican Americans forimmigrant r ights : Framingstrategies in two mult i-racialcoal it ions

Sylvia Zamoraa and Chinyere Osuj ibaUniversity of Chicago, IL.bRutgers University-Camden, NJ.

Abstract Social movement framing is a critical element in bringing together hetero-geneous groups as allies in common political struggle. Immigrant rights organizations,like other social movement groups, must construct framing strategies to mobilizepotential adherents, including African Americans and other non-immigrant groups.Drawing on interview data with leaders and members of two Los Angeles grassrootsmulti-racial coalitions, this article examines the framing strategies and negotiations eachmakes as they attempt to increase Black participation in the immigrant rights movement.Findings indicate that organizers relied on two prominent rhetorical strategies: the“immigrant worker” frame centered on an immigrant work ethic, and a more encom-passing social and racial “injustice” frame. Although both carried some appeal, weargue that African Americans’ perceptions of labor market competition with immigrantsposed significant challenges to building sustainable coalitions. We further demonstratehow inaction and avoidance by activists inhibited potential Black participation in themovement. We conclude with some implications of our findings for the role of socialmovement frames in fostering new and effective alliances between African Americansand immigrants.Latino Studies (2014) 12, 424–448. doi:10.1057/lst.2014.47

Keywords: African Americans; immigrant rights; framing; social movements; multi-racial coalitions; immigration

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 12, 3, 424–448www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/lst.2014.47

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/lst

A New Civi l Rights Movement in the Making

In the spring of 2006, millions of immigrants and their allies across the nationtook to the streets in what became one of the largest mass mobilizations in UShistory. Known as the Mega Marches, these protests were in direct oppositionto HR 4437, the Sensenbrenner Bill, which had passed the House of Represen-tatives months before (Narro et al, 2007; Gonzales, 2009). This bill would haveturned undocumented migrants into felons and criminalize those who provideservices to them. The magnitude and spirit of these marches evoked images of the1964 Civil Rights Movement, but with one stark difference: the notable absenceof African Americans. Drawing on similarities between the current fight forimmigrant rights and the African American struggle for racial and economicequality, some activists have proclaimed that the immigrant rights movement isthe “New Civil Rights Movement” (Johnson and Hing, 2007). It remains to beseen, however, whether social justice organizations will be successful in mobili-zing African Americans into a large-scale multi-racial coalition for immigrantrights.

Although Blacks and Latinos share certain commonalities including highincarceration rates and low education and income levels, experiencing similartreatment by society is not a sufficient condition for creating a sense ofcommonality or building sustainable alliances. Indeed, scholars contend thatAfrican Americans and Latinos cannot be presumed natural allies owing tovarious factors, including conflict over perceived competition for jobs and otherresources (Vaca, 2004; Telles et al, 2011). This, in turn, presents a significantbarrier for grassroots activists organizing in low-income, multi-racial commu-nities, who are faced with the challenge of identifying and articulating a commonground between two of the largest historically aggrieved racial groups in thenation.

Social movement frames provide a useful theoretical framework for examininghow coalition leaders and members construct meaning about the role andparticipation of African Americans in the immigrant rights movement. Successfulframing strategies can bring heterogeneous groups together as allies in commonpolitical struggles (Tarrow, 1996). Similar to other social movement organiza-tions (Snow and Benford, 1988), immigrant rights organizations negotiateframing strategies to mobilize constituents (that is immigrants) and target newaudiences, including native Blacks. These framing strategies are an essential partof the micro-processes of coalition-building, and are crucial to achieving amovement’s goals by incorporating new and broad constituencies into a socialmovement. Examining the meaning that social movement activists give to theircoalition-building activities can thus illuminate the negotiations involved in theframing process.

This article examines the framing strategies of two grassroots multi-racialorganizations – the Inter-ethnic Labor Alliance (ILA) and the Coalition for Social

Framing immigrant rights

425© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 12, 3, 424–448

Justice (CSJ)1 – to illustrate the negotiations activists make as they attempt toencourage Black participation in the immigrant rights movement. First, wediscuss how perspectives on framing have been useful in understanding mobiliza-tion in social movements. We pay particular attention to immigrant rights framesin the context of the historically tenuous relationship between African Americansand immigrants groups. In the next section, we examine interview data withleaders and members from our case studies and find that the organizations rely ontwo prominent framing strategies: the immigrant worker frame (ILA) centeringon the immigrant work ethic and worker identity, and the injustice frame (CSJ)invoking historical examples of racial and economic inequality to emphasizeshared grievances among racial minority groups. Specifically, we illustrate theframe preservation strategies (Babb, 1996) of the two organizations as theystruggle to maintain the credibility of the immigrant worker and injustice framesfor Black audiences. We argue that perceptions of labor market competition withimmigrants pose significant challenges to framing immigrant rights to AfricanAmericans, and by extension, building sustainable multi-racial coalitions. Weconclude with the role of negative cases in understanding framing processes andthe implications of our findings for multi-racial coalition building, particularlybetween native Blacks and Latino immigrants.

Framing in Social Movement Coal it ions

Goffman defined frames as “schemata of interpretation” that enable individuals“to locate, perceive, identify, and label” occurrences within their life space andthe world at large (Goffman, 1974, 21). Social movement and coalition-buildingactors actively construct frames to negotiate and renegotiate the shared meaningsof a social issue (Gamson et al, 1982; Snow and Benford, 1988; Zald, 1996).Frames are necessary conditions for social action because they help interpretproblems, suggest modes of action to remedy the problem and compel others tobecome involved in social movement activities.

When attempting to build coalitions across heterogeneous actors, it cannotbe assumed that individuals with similar demographic characteristics will sharecommon identities, political goals or interests in forming alliances (Tarrow,1996). This is because the interests, values and beliefs of one constituencymay not be the same as another. For this reason, the success of a social move-ment coalition is a function of organizers’ ability to construct frames thatresonate with potential supporters and wider audiences (Goffman, 1974; Snowand Benford, 1988). Specifically, frames must relate to an individual’s personalexperiences and cultural narratives to be perceived as credible or resonant,and be effective (Zuo and Benford, 1995; Fisher, 1997; Benford and Snow,2000).

1 The names oforganizations andactivists arepseudonyms toprotect theiranonymity.

Zamora and Osuji

426 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 12, 3, 424–448

At the same time, audiences are not passively subject to frames and instead,play an active role in their development (McAdam et al, 1996). For this reason, associal movement organizations frame their goals to outsiders and new consti-tuents, these new members may engage in counter framing and internal framedisputes that can undermine a movement’s version of reality (Benford, 1993).Even constituents who have seemingly been incorporated into a social movementorganization may present counter frames that threaten or undermine the explicitgoals of the organization. This can result in a lack of mobilization or inaction onthe part of social movement adherents.

When frame disputes or counter frames occur among members, social move-ment organizations may engage in a number of strategies to address them. Theymay engage in frame preservation tactics such as using ambiguous languageor redefining key frame terms (Babb, 1996). In addition, while often overlookedin studies of framing in social movements (Zuo and Benford, 1995; Benford,1997), inaction may be another frame preservation strategy that movementactors employ instead of dealing directly with contention among constituents. Inother words, organizers may avoid discussions that focus on difference out ofconcern that they will create divisions instead of recognizing that addressingdifferences – in this case perceived differences in access to jobs – is essential toaccomplishing their goals (Dobbie and Richards-Schuster, 2008).

Immigrant Rights Frames and Afr ican American Mobil izat ion

Immigration scholars have highlighted the important role that grassroots coalitionsplayed in successful large-scale mobilizations for immigrant rights (Gonzales,2009; Bloemraad et al, 2011; Martinez, 2011). Among various frames that havebeen deployed by immigrant rights activists to advocate for a path to citizenshipfor undocumented immigrants, the immigrant worker frame and the injusticeframe are among the most prominent (Bloemraad et al, 2011). The immigrantworker frame emphasizes the work ethic of undocumented immigrants and thecentrality of immigrant labor in strengthening the US economy (Johnson andHing, 2007; Escobar, 2010; Gleeson and Gonzales, 2010). Immigrant rightsorganizations have often drawn on this frame to make claims about the right ofundocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally (Osuji, 2010;Patler, 2010). Narratives emphasizing the economic contribution of immigrants,particularly those centering on US values of family and work, have been relativelysuccessful in appealing to public opinion and mainstream media coverage(Bloemraad et al, 2011).

However, the immigrant worker frame may fail to resonate with AfricanAmericans. First of all, relying on the notion that immigrants are “hardworking”members of society may feed into divisive distinctions between “good”



immigrants and “bad,” “lazy” African Americans. In addition, given that Blackswere historically relegated to the same low-wage occupations that immigrantsoccupy today, immigrant worker narratives may lack credibility with nativeBlacks who feel that America has failed to meet its promise of full citizenship. Assuch, despite Blacks’ strong beliefs in human rights and racial equality, and theirgeneral opposition to harmful anti-immigrant measures (Carter, 2007; Sawyer,2008), discourse on the immigrant worker may only serve to play up anti-blackstereotypes and hinder Black mobilization for immigrant rights.

The injustice frame, on the other hand, allows members from diverse sectorsto interpret particular events or circumstances as similarly unjust based onminority groups’ “shared outsider status” as marginalized members of society(Kaufmann, 2003). For example, emphasis is placed on structural inequality,such as economic disinvestment in low-income communities, to highlight com-monalities between Blacks and Latinos living in poverty. The potential of thisframe for multi-racial coalitions is dependent on community leaders’ ability toconstruct narratives that resonate across racial lines (Small, 2004). In the past,immigrant rights groups have used the injustice frame to secure welfare benefitsfor poor, elderly and disabled undocumented immigrants (Fujiwara, 2005).In addition, they have been successful in fostering Black and Latino collaborationon a number of issues, such as health disparities, educational equality and racialprofiling (Johnson, 2005; Zamora, 2011). What is less clear is whether theinjustice frame’s success in fostering African American collaboration with USborn Latinos will carry over to support for coalitions with undocumentedimmigrants, particularly around issues of immigrant rights.

Previous studies show that African Americans have an uneasy relationship withimmigration due to the view that Blacks are losing jobs to Latino immigrants(Johnson and Oliver, 1989; Johnson et al, 1997; Waldinger and Lichter, 2003).This sentiment is not new, however, as African Americans have a long historyexperiencing labor market displacement by newly arriving immigrants datingback to before the current wave of immigration (Diamond, 1998; Carter, 2007).For example, in 1853 Frederick Douglass expressed that “every hour sees theblack man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived emigrant” (Foner,1950, 264). These sentiments may be exacerbated with the anti-immigrantclimate since September 11th (Narro et al, 2007) as well as the current economiccrisis that has disproportionately affected low-income communities.

Given the historically tenuous relationship between African Americans andimmigrant groups, Blacks may see the current immigrant rights movement as yetanother threat to their economic well-being. Current efforts by Latino activiststo highlight commonalities with African Americans drawing primarily onimmigrant worker experiences can thus have the unintended consequence ofglossing over African Americans’ unique history of labor market exclusion.Blacks may also draw on nativist discourse of citizenship when making claimsfor civil rights that in their view, immigrants are not equally entitled to (Sandoval,

Zamora and Osuji


2010). Although there is little empirical evidence for immigrants lowering wagesand increasing unemployment for Blacks (Lim, 2001; Bean et al, 2011), theinjustice frame may not culturally resonate with African Americans because ofindividual and collective experiences of employer discrimination in favor of newlyarriving immigrants. For these reasons, the injustice frame may lack thecredibility required to motivate large-scale Black mobilization for immigrantrights.

Beyond labor market dynamics, scholars have pointed to other sources ofBlack and Latino tension, such as Latino anti-black sentiment, that may renderexisting immigrant rights frames unsuccessful. African Americans may challengeexisting frames, or present counter frames, if their observations or experienceswith Latino immigrants do not line up with the narratives emphasizedby activists. Existing studies show that Latinos tend to hold negative views ofBlacks and express little interest in forming alliances with Blacks (Henry, 1980,225; Rodrigues and Segura, 2004, 3; Vaca, 2004; McClain et al, 2006). Latinoimmigrants have engaged in social distancing from African Americans, which ismotivated by anti-black stereotypes originating in their home countries (Obolerand Dzidzienyo, 2005) and those adopted in the United States (McClain et al,2006; Marrow, 2009). These patterns may play a role in African American viewsof Latinos as untrustworthy allies in the struggle for racial and social justice.

Although many social justice gains have been the result of carefully coordinatedcoalitions of groups from various sectors (Bloemraad, et al, 2011; Martinez, 2011),little is known about the framing strategies deployed in African American andLatino immigrant coalition-building efforts. The few existing studies examining therole of multi-racial mobilization in social movement organizations (Warren, 2001;Johnson, 2005; Dobbie and Richards-Schuster, 2008; Rusch, 2010) have largelyneglected the process of creating, maintaining and disbanding coalitions (Morris,1993; Bystydzienski and Schacht, 2001; Meyer, 2001; Mix, 2011), includingframing negotiations and contestations by the intended recipients. In addition,scholars have often neglected the “negative cases” such as the micro-processes offrame failure (Mooney and Hunt, 1996; Benford, 1997; Benford and Snow, 2000;Mirola, 2003; Reese and Newcombe, 2003; Hallgrimsdottir et al, 2006;Markowitz, 2009), particularly within multi-racial coalitions.

Utilizing the concept of social movement frames to analyze coalition building intwo multi-racial organizations presents an opportunity to study the processes bywhich grassroots organizers construct meaning around immigrant rights andlabor market dynamics between native Blacks and immigrants. Further, exploringthe extent to which coalition frames resonate with Blacks is useful for under-standing how diverse groups with varying interests are brought together to formsuccessful coalitions. As we demonstrate in this article, many African Americansfeel that undocumented immigration, and thus immigrant rights, is incompatiblewith their economic well-being. These issues are exacerbated when movementorganizers fail to directly address African American members’ concerns over job



market competition. Whether the threat from Latino immigrants is real orimagined, this article shows that failure to address this particular issue can provedetrimental to mobilizing large-scale African American support for what somehave termed the “New Civil Rights Movement” (Johnson and Hing, 2007).

Data and Methods

This article draws on qualitative data collected by the authors for two separatecase studies of multi-ethnic social movement organizations in the Los Angelesarea. The first study focuses on the ILA, an immigrant rights network of workercenters organizing undocumented low-wage immigrants for a path to citizenship.Each worker center targets specific ethnic groups for mobilization, includingLatino and Asian/Pacific Islander communities. Data from this study consistprimarily of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with coalition leaders, includingthe director of ILA (n= 1), executive directors of the separate workers centers(n= 5), and current and former organizers from the different worker centers(n= 5), gathered from June to October of 2007.

The second project examines CSJ, a multi-ethic, multi-issue community-basedorganization in South Los Angeles working primarily with African American andLatino residents. Analysis for this study draws on data from semi-structuredinterviews with coalition members (n= 16) and leaders (n= 5) as well as 6 monthsof participation observation in CSJ’s daily activities conducted from June toDecember of 2006. Nine interviewees were African American, 10 were Latino,one was Asian American and one was White. Interviewees were selected based ontheir staff positions (one executive director, three youth organizers and oneformer organizer), and coalition members were recruited through announcementsin various coalition meetings.

As two multi-ethnic social justice organizations working with disenfranchisedpopulations, ILA and CSJ often find themselves involved in the same campaigns,press conferences, rallies and marches. They have also collaborated directly onissue-based campaigns, such as immigration reform, and are guest speakers ateach other’s events. Both organizations share the strategic goal of inter-ethniccoalition building; however, ILA directs its recruitment efforts at immigrantcommunities, while CSJ targets Black and Latino residents of South LA. Despitethe original projects’ distinct origins and substantive focus, there were salientthemes that emerged in both case studies around the challenges confrontinggrassroots organizers in their efforts to build sustainable African American andimmigrant coalitions. Although each case can serve as an example of successfulmodels for issue-based multi-ethnic collaboration, analysis of the data revealcomparable obstacles to African American-immigration coalition buildingaround issues specific to immigrant rights.

Zamora and Osuji


The Research Site : Los Angeles

In many ways, Los Angeles is a microcosm of the population shifts that theUnited States as a whole is experiencing. In the 1990s, migration from LatinAmerica and Asia converted the city into a “majority-minority” metropolis,with the population of Latinos, Blacks and Asians comprising 63 per cent of thepopulation (Charles, 2009). A similar pattern has been repeated across thecountry, with whites becoming the minority of residents in over 30 differentmetropolitan areas (Frey and Farley, 1993). Whites are expected to becomea minority within the next century (Edmonston and Passel, 1992; Massey,1995).

Largely driving these changes is immigration from Latin America, with Latinosforming the largest ethnic minority in the country, comprising 16 per cent of theUS population (US Census Bureau, 2011). Currently, Los Angeles is 47 per centLatino and has a foreign-born population comprising one-third of the county; incontrast Blacks make up only less than 9 per cent of the population (US CensusBureau, 2012). These demographic shifts have changed neighborhoods like SouthLos Angeles (formerly South Central), which has commonly been perceived aspredominantly Black. It has seen Black proportions of the population declinelargely owing to the increasing presence of Latinos.

Although Los Angeles has not experienced a shrinking manufacturing sectorto the same extent that other cities have (Waldinger, 1996; Milkman, 2006),wages in this sector have steadily decreased over the last several decades. Thishas led to positions in this sector being less attractive to the native-born, includingAfrican Americans, with low-skilled immigrant workers providing an inexpen-sive, easily exploitable labor force. It is in this context of demographic shiftsthat some African Americans understand immigrants as a threat to their eco-nomic well-being (Pastor et al, 2011). For instance, in his study on racial politicsin Los Angeles, Sawyer (2011) found that unemployment, followed by educa-tion and racial discrimination, was the central issues facing the Black com-munity. In another study on race in Los Angeles, Charles (2009) found that halfof Blacks surveyed saw Latinos, both native and foreign-born, as an economicand political threat. Therefore, to the extent that immigration is attributedto Black unemployment, immigrants rights organizers in Los Angeles will faceformidable barriers to building Black and Latino alliances for immigrationreform.

Given its dramatic population shifts over the last several decades, Los Angelesprovides an ideal site to investigate the negotiations surrounding multi-racialcoalition-building. Blacks and Latinos have incarceration rates higher andeducation and income levels lower than the national average (Rodrigues andSegura, 2004; Pastor et al, 2011). In Los Angeles, they often live in the samecommunities, allowing the opportunity for multi-racial coalitions to mobilize forpublic services at the neighborhood level.



I LA and the Immigrant Worker Frame

To incorporate undocumented immigrants from various backgrounds into theimmigrant rights movement, ILA organizers commonly deploy the immigrantworker frame. This framing strategy emphasizes a worker identity drawing onthe role of immigrant status in shaping the exploitative working conditions of theundocumented. Problems with wage and hour violations, unsafe workingconditions, and fear of immigration raids and deportations are depicted asexperiences shared by low-wage immigrants across racial and ethnic lines. Thisframe appeals to a broader notion that labor – immigrant labor – is central toAmerican conceptions of work ethic and citizenship (Gordon and Lenhardt,2007; Gleeson, 2010).

We show that although discourse on the immigrant worker has been relativelysuccessful in mobilizing Latino and Asian immigrants, it is less effective ingarnering African American support for immigrant rights. ILA organizers areaware of the frame’s potentially alienating effects on African Americans, and inefforts to draw them in, engage in frame preservation strategies of expandingthe frame to be inclusive of Blacks while maintaining the focus on workers.However, we argue that by stressing the importance of immigrant labor, thisframing strategy glosses over the particularities of African American labor marketexperiences, rendering it ineffective in mobilizing African Americans. ILA’sinaction regarding the implementation of concrete strategies for incorporatingnative Blacks further hinders the prospects for such coalitions.

ILA organizers share a stated interest in the need for collaboration with nativeBlacks. Many expressed that achieving a path to citizenship for undocumentedimmigrants requires a strategy of mobilizing constituents of various races andethnicities, particularly non-immigrant groups. Jennifer, Organizing Director ofILA at the time, stated that building alliances with African Americans is partof ILA’s “core work.” Organizers emphasized the desire to collaborate withBlacks on campaigns that benefit all workers, such as a minimum wage increase.While ILA’s interest in forging long-term alliances with Blacks was evident, somenoted the limitations of the immigrant worker frame.

Aware of the potential of the immigrant worker frame to create divisionsbetween immigrant and African American workers, Joaquin, an ILA organizer,explained how ILA addresses this in their campaigns:

I think the only way, really, we’ve tried to address it is in our messaging, andabout making sure that our messaging does not reinforce that. For example,saying “hardworking immigrants deserve legalization” … We wouldn’t usethat statement, because, one: African Americans are being locked out ofjobs. So we’re trying to bring a worker identity, but it’s like low-wage andno-wage workers. So we’re being really explicit about our messaging to notexclude and try to be inclusive, while not losing the emphasis on immigrant

Zamora and Osuji


workers that we have. I think that that’s an important way … I think in themessaging that we put [forward], we try to be really responsible.

(Joaquin, interview by Osuji, September 2007)

Joaquin’s comments illustrate how ILA attempts to preserve the standardimmigrant worker frame while trying to avoid reifying the perceived distinctionbetween “hardworking” immigrants and “lazy” African Americans. Like otherILA leaders, Joaquin sees this discourse as pitting native Blacks against undocu-mented immigrants in public discourse. However, the quote also reveals ILA’slimited efforts, which are placed on expanding the messages they articulate totheir largely immigrant membership base rather than to potential Black allies. Inother words, their framing strategies are intended to avoid perpetuating anti-Black stereotypes among immigrants, not necessarily as a strategy to recruit Blackworkers into the organization.

In the process of strategizing how best to collaborate with African Americans,ILA leaders invited Robert, the Executive Director of CSJ, the second organi-zation featured in this article, to speak during a strategic planning meetingfollowing the 2006 Mega Marches. Explaining the motivations behind ILA’sdecision to invite Robert to address them, Lorenzo, an ILA organizer, emphasizedthe role that African Americans can play in the demand for immigration reform,stating, “there’s a lot of misinformation, mis-education of both groups, theAfrican Americans and the immigrants … but if we don’t bring AfricanAmericans into the mix, we’re not going to be able to force the political class tobend the rules, to change the laws” (Lorenzo, interview by Osuji, 7 September2007). ILA organizers regularly referenced CSJ as an ally organization, citinghow CSJ often provides turnout to ILA events. According to ILA’s organizationaldocuments, CSJ appears as a co-sponsor of the 1 May workers rights marchessince 2007. Several ILA respondents commented that they would like tocollaborate with CSJ beyond simply turning out to each other’s events. InvitingRobert to discuss howmore effectively to appeal to Black workers was therefore astrategic decision on the part of ILA. Joaquin explains:

… [Robert] did talk about our limitations and how our discourse reallydidn’t resonate with African Americans. And he gave a good example,saying, “Well, your immigrants [say] – ‘The reason why we are here isbecause we get hired. Nobody does the work that immigrants do.’ ” And hesaid, “That’s good. But you should add that nobody works those jobs withthe wages… the wages that they [provide]…” So in a way it was good thathe came in and gave us his point of view as an outsider.


Joaquin pointed out that ILA’s immigrant worker frame reinforced thecommon notion that “nobody does the work that immigrants do” (interview byOsuji, September 2007). This phrase often implies that low-skilled African



Americans are unwilling to do hard labor, a perception fueled by stereotypesof Blacks as lazy and welfare dependent. This misconception further impliesthat African Americans have no justification for claims that immigrants take“their” jobs. Deploying this discourse to make a point about the contributionof immigrant laborers can alienate Blacks, whose historical experiences andcultural narratives of labor market segregation into low-status jobs do not lineup with immigrant worker experiences. Robert suggested that ILA redefine keyterms by specifying that undocumented immigrants work below the wages ofnative workers, thus making these jobs unappealing to all workers, citizens andimmigrants alike.

Robert’s comments affected ILA’s framing strategies in another way. Joaquindescribed working with CSJ during campaigns against the anti-immigrantlegislation HR 4437, and before the 2006 Mega Marches, saying:

I think when we were talking to [Robert], who is the Executive Director of[Coalition for Social Justice], about how do you make that [connection]more real than just turning out to each other’s events… ? So we went out tosome African American churches and organizations and did presentationson basically what are the ties between HR 4437 and the Fugitive Slave Act;how to talk about it deeper than just … it’s not just about immigration …


Similar sentiments were recounted by other ILA organizers, who noted that inorder to draw in African Americans, it would be necessary to make connectionsbeyond immigration. This frame extension was a strategic attempt on the partof immigrant rights activists to garner Black opposition to current anti-immigrantlegislation. While the extent to which this framing strategy worked is unclear,Joaquin’s comments illustrate how working with CSJ opened up possibilitiesand strategies for ILA to engage African Americans in the immigrant rightsmovement. It also reveals, however, the challenges ILA faces in developinga frame with a “deeper” connection that would resonate with African Americans,as well as building a more sustainable coalition that includes more than attendingeach other’s events.

ILA organizers believed that the relative absence of Black workers in theircampaigns was due in part to mainstream media portrayals of inter-racialconflict. In reflecting on the existing barriers to incorporating African Americansinto the movement, many respondents cited the media’s pervasive counter framesthat situate immigrant rights as detrimental to native workers’ economic well-being. Jennifer, the former Organizing Director of ILA explained:

I think for us, how do we build and actually work together … And also,how do we have a joint political analysis and framework when we’re talkingto the media about race and immigration, or when we’re talking about thelocal economy and race? You know, we can try to develop some kind of

Zamora and Osuji


common analysis … I think the problem right now is that a lot of bothimmigrant groups and non-immigrant groups are playing into the main-stream analysis that there are scarce resources, and all of us have to fight forthem, and one group is taking away jobs from the other.

(Jennifer, interview by Osuji, July 2007)

Similarly, ILA organizer Isabel commented:

… the way that policy makers and legislators talk about the [AfricanAmerican] community and the immigrant community, they try and pitboth groups against each other, and they’ve crafted this story where, forexample, Latinos are stealing the jobs from African American workers, andthen African American workers have these specific characteristics andwhatever. And so what progressive communities are trying to say is that’snot the case, we actually have more in common than we have differences,and that these stereotypes have been ingrained in us so much that we justneed to break down what these stereotypes are and foster a more genuineunity… last year there was the big immigrant upsurge, and then in trying towork the African American community, I think the media played it out that,or if it wasn’t the media, somebody fed that information to them … thatimmigrants are stealing jobs of African American workers, and therefore weshouldn’t be working with each other, when, in fact, that isn’t the case.

(Isabel, interview by Osuji, July 2007)

Jennifer and Isabel’s comments highlight the pervasiveness of the immigrantand Black job competition counter frame that immigrant rights organizers mustcontend with. Both quotes demonstrate how ILA interprets this narrative asone mainly concocted by politicians and the media, overlooking its long historyand saliency within African American communities. As Isabel explained,ILA counters these arguments by emphasizing commonality between AfricanAmerican and immigrant workers based on their similarly demonized depictionin media discourse. Rather than directly targeting African American concernsover “immigrants stealing jobs,” particularly when addressing Black audiences,ILA instead deployed the ambiguous language of racial “unity.” While thisallowed ILA to preserve the immigrant worker frame as well as their stance onmulti-ethnic organizing, calls for unity fell short of garnering Black support forimmigrant rights.

When asked explicitly about ways that ILA reframed the job competitionnarrative to African American constituents, several organizers admitted thatthere was a lack of organizing around this particular issue. Joaquin stated, “Youknow, we’re not doing any active work around that” (Joaquin, interview byOsuji, September 2007). In fact, there had been few, if any, attempts to reframelabor market competition directly to African American audiences. Moreover,there appeared to be no real alternatives to talking about African American



concerns over job competition apart from agreement that existing frameswere divisive, and making pleas for unity that at times drew on Black culturalexperiences, such as slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act. This relative inactionaround the highly contentious issue of job competition is something that respon-dents said that they were working to address within the organization.

However, given internal differences that often emerge within coalitions,organizers held varying opinions about the role of African Americans in ILA,including whether the organization was ready to incorporate African Americanworkers. Luis, who is firmly committed to working with African Americansexplained:

A couple of people from [an ally organization] and I, specifically, I havepushed hard to bring the African Americans into the mix. And there’s someresistance to that. And I don’t think it has to do with prejudice because itwould be a contradiction to come out and say that. Or even if they don’tcome out, I think that some who do not advocate for bringing the AfricanAmericans into the mix, they think that they’re not ready to deal with allthe issues that African Americans deal with. Even though immigrants facethe same circumstances, the same prejudices as African Americans inhousing, employment, education – specifically education – even if they seethe relevance, I don’t think they’re ready for African Americans. So anyway,what I’m trying to say is that some of us have tried several times to bringmore analysis about the benefits of joining forces or having an organizationthat is part of ILA that is predominately African American. But we’re notthere yet. (Luis, interview by Osuji, August 2007)

Indeed, every respondent expressed the commonalities between immigrantand African American workers; however, as Luis’ comment reveals, there hasbeen some resistance from organizers about whether ILA’s core mission includesorganizing Black workers more explicitly. As the quote suggests, one possiblereason for this apprehension is that some organizers may view certain issuessuch as education or incarceration as issues that ILA – as an immigrant workerorganization – is not prepared to tackle. That some within ILA may not be“ready” to incorporate native Blacks may be an additional factor explainingILA’s inaction regarding the implementation of strategies for recruiting Blackmembers specifically.

Moreover, it was not uncommon for some organizers to make distinctionsbetween building alliances with African American groups and incorporatingthem fully as members of ILA. Commenting on the nature of ILA’s workwith African American communities following the 2006 Mega Marches, Isabelexplains:

I think now we’re able to work with groups and churches that are in theBlack community that aren’t used to working in a multi-ethnic setting. And

Zamora and Osuji


I think that’s really good, because that really exposes us to another group offolks and exposes our group of folks [to other groups]. And it’s our corework to build alliances with them, to get advice to support their campaign.But it’s not our core work, necessarily; we don’t represent them. You knowwhat I mean? That’s not what we’re trying to do.

(Isabel, interview by Osuji, July 2007)

Isabel’s quote suggests that the Black groups ILA has attempted to bulidalliances with are less experienced working in a multi-ethnic setting. At one pointshe mentioned the Black Reverend in the church, commenting, “his politics onimmigration aren’t that great” (interview by Osuji, 18 July 2007). Although thismay be in line with previous studies suggesting that some Black leaders expressconservative views on immigration policy (Sawyer, 2008; Sandoval, 2010),Isabel’s statement suggests that ILA’s strategy for outreaching to Black audiencesshould center on getting “advice to support their campaign” rather thanincorporating and representing African American workers alongside immigrantworkers.

In sum, ILA’s attempts at incorporating Blacks into the immigrant rightsmovement illustrate how leaders confronted, yet failed to effectively contest,issues of immigrant labor competition. ILA engaged in different frame preserva-tion strategies such as modifying the immigrant rights frame, redefining keyterms, and using the ambiguous language of “alliances” and “unity.” However,expressing a desire for unity followed by inaction, ILA’s attempts to confront theproblematic issue of labor market competition among African Americans fellshort of drawing in Black supporters, let alone active organization members. Inaddition, varying opinions among organizers about the role of African Americansin ILA, and the best framing strategies the organization should deploy, led toinaction that ultimately resulted in the absence of Blacks in ILA.

CSJ and the Injust ice Frame

Similar to ILA, CSJ’s core mission is to foster multi-racial and ethnic collabora-tion for social justice. To this end, CSJ strategically deploys the injustice framethat emphasizes shared grievances between African Americans and Latinos inSouth Los Angeles. The injustice frame positions African Americans and Latinosas “natural allies” by drawing on the long history of structural inequality thathas similarly affected both groups. These shared conditions include racialdiscrimination, exploitation as second-class laborers, unequal access to qualityeducation and health care, to name a few. CSJ’s framing strategy includes a focuson shared residential location, and collective identity as South LA residents, aswell as a similar socioeconomic status as working-class Blacks and Latinos. Forexample, in a previous campaign for access to healthy and fresh food, CSJ drew



on notions of “food apartheid” to symbolize the racial and economic inequalityfaced by its members, particularly when compared to the wealthier and largelywhite neighboring region of West LA (Zamora, 2011).

In this section, we argue that although more amenable than the immigrantworker frame to the formation of African American and immigrant collabora-tion, the injustice frame presents limitations in its appeal to Black constituents.This is due primarily to African American fears and insecurities over job marketcompetition with immigrants. By not addressing Black members’ concerns aboutimmigrants posing a threat to their material well-being, several Black coalitionmembers expressed uncertainty about their position – and the degree to whichthey are willing to participate – in the immigrant rights movement.

Although immigrant rights are not an explicit goal of CSJ, organizers under-stand members’ participation in the immigrant rights movement as a naturalextension of “Black and Brown” solidarity. As such, the deployment of theinjustice frame involves linking the plight of Latino immigrants to larger economicstructures and white supremacy. Mark, a long-term CSJ organizer explains:

… we have a strong historical context of how things got to be the way theyare and … we have a strong class analysis and a critique of capitalism anda critique and an understanding that the main problem is white racism andwhite supremacy … So I think when we’re trying to frame things usinga class analysis to point out how Black and Latino working class sharesimilar things in common, so, focusing on how they’re both facing classoppression and they both face racial oppression at the hands of the whitemajority or the white group in power.

(Mark, interview by Zamora, October 2006)

As Mark’s quote reveals, CSJ combines a race and class framework toilluminate how working class Blacks and Latinos, which includes undocumentedimmigrants, are similarly aggrieved due to social and economic exclusion at thehands of a white elite.

The injustice frame resonated with some African American CSJ members.Jackie, for example, expressed critical views of the government and private sectorfor the shortage of job opportunities in South LA. She exclaimed, “they throw usa little crumb and then we fight over jobs that will keep us enslaved” (Jackie,interview by Zamora, October 2006). Nicky, another Black CSJ member sharingher views on immigration expressed a similar sentiment about the politicalsystem:

Let’s work with building a fair country. I don’t say send them home back tonothing because I do have compassion for their needs and wants, “causethey’re our next door neighbors. These people need help, and want help, butthis system is screwed up … ”

(Nicky, interview by Zamora, November 2006)

Zamora and Osuji


Jackie and Nicky illustrate how the injustice frame allows CSJ constituents toidentify structural factors as the main culprit behind racial conflict over jobs.Rather than scapegoating undocumented immigrants as the cause of unemploy-ment, this framing strategy provides a lens through which Blacks can identifya common target for mobilization: politicians and employers.

Although some Black CSJ members expressed concern over being overlookedfor jobs in favor of immigrants, the injustice narrative constructs the job shortageas a problem affecting all South LA residents, whether Black or Latino. Karla,a CSJ organizer, recounted an episode where an African American man came toa CSJ meeting “angry” about Blacks being overlooked for jobs in a local factory:

… it was an older African American man who brings up the issue of jobsand competition with Latinos and how “At this factory they won’t hireBlack people” and “You don’t think that’s racism,” etcetera and it might betrue but I don’t want to just say it like that cause it will give the impressionto everybody else that the issue is just Black folks and it’s just their strugglewhen we’re trying to frame the issue of human beings in this geographicalarea are being treated this way.

(Karla, interview by Zamora, November 2006)

Indeed, some Black members drew on personal experiences and observationswith employer discrimination that did not line up with the message that Latinosare “natural allies” in the struggle for equal access to job opportunities. The olderBlack man’s claim that the local factory “won’t hire black people” poignantlyillustrates the distress some Blacks experience over fears that they are beingpushed aside in favor of Latino immigrants. However, in responding to theman’s concern, Karla explained how another CSJ member deployed the injusticeframe:

So … another African American man looked at me and said, “Let merespond.” And he said, “But how are we gonna fix this by turning againstthose people who are working. They got families too and are trying to makeit just like we’re trying to make it and what we gotta do is demand for thiscity to give job contracts in South L.A. and make sure there is local hiring.For example, this huge building is going up and 900 people are beingemployed and not one is from South LA.” Everything he had learned aboutthe Black and Brown frame, he spit it out. And for the other man, hearing itfrom his peer. I could have said the same thing and he probably would havecursed me out! Cause he already came to the meeting angry. I don’t blamehim. (Karla, interview by Zamora, November 2006)

Karla’s comment best illustrates the process by which the injustice frame canbe deployed to garner Black support for immigrant rights. It also reveals theeffectiveness of positioning African Americans as frame articulators who playa direct role in dispelling animosity towards Latinos. Namely, the Black CSJ



member redefined immigrants as neighbors by making place salient througha shared residential location. This redefinition of terms helped to preserve theinjustice frame while at the same time acknowledging Black concerns about jobcompetition. Unlike ILA, CSJ’s tactics proved more successful in preserving theinjustice frame while contesting ideas about labor market competition that couldresonate with Blacks.

The period leading up to the 2006 Mega Marches, however, heightenedAfrican American concerns and raised new questions among coalition membersabout the impact of immigration on native Blacks. Mark explains:

… around the immigration debate there was a concern in the Blackcommunity about, “Well, there’s not enough jobs for us so what’s gonnahappen if more people come in?”… there’s a feeling of “we’ve been waitingforever to get our fair share and our fair due and we still haven’t gotten it.And now there’s another group that’s coming in and that’s more competi-tion if we’re trying to get our fair share …” I think the way you address it isby saying, “Well the Latino population can be your ally in helping you getyour fair share cause you guys are in the same boat together so by workingtogether you actually have a bigger influence and bigger power againsta common enemy.” (Mark, interview by Zamora, October 2006)

As Mark notes, these concerns were heightened as CSJ attempted to mobilizeits members to attend the immigrant rights marches. The dialogue aroundimmigrant demands for a pathway to citizenship presented a unique challenge tothe existing injustice frame, which had previously emphasized neighborhood levelissues. Similar to ILA, CSJ attempted to preserve the injustice frame by includingmessages about Latinos as a strategic ally for Blacks seeking “their fair share” ofresources and opportunities.

However, as the above quote reveals, some African Americans challengedthe injustice frame with a powerful counter frame drawing on Civil Rights andcitizenship rhetoric. After a long and hard fight for civil rights, some Blacks feltthat America has yet to fulfill its promise of granting full citizenship to the AfricanAmerican community (Carter, 2007). As such, Blacks perceived undocumentedimmigrants as unworthy of making demands for citizenship rights, as Patricia’sstatement suggests, “you got 12 million Latinos in the United States raisinghell for something that don’t belong to them” (Patricia, interview by Zamora,November 2006). Indeed, this rhetoric has been found in previous studiesshowing that African Americans strategically draw on nativist discourse ofcitizenship when making claims to civil rights and to position native Blacksseparately from undocumented immigrants (Sandoval, 2010). At the same time,this counter frame suggests that Black CSJ members are not passive recipients ofthe injustice frame, rather, they present competing narratives that, although theymay undermine the larger goals of the organization, resonate more deeply withAfrican American collective experiences.

Zamora and Osuji


This is not to say that counter frames impede all Black CSJ members fromparticipating in coalition activities with immigrant groups. CSJ successfullymobilized a contingent of members who marched the streets in 2006 holdinga large banner reading: “South L.A. Supports Immigrant Rights.” Some Blackmembers in attendance fully supported immigrant rights, while others joined themarches out of solidarity with CSJ rather than in direct support of immigrantrights. Other Black members chose to not attend the marches. One member,Nicky, explained her decision not to attend the immigrant rights marches, saying:

[The] walk that illegal immigrants had, I was asked to participate in thatand I told them no because it was a conflict of interest for me and I saiddon’t ask me why cause you might get your feelings hurt. Some of my Latinofriends asked me, “Are you gonna march?” and I said, “No I’m notmarching.” You have to think of what position this is gonna put AfricanAmericans in and I’m not gonna participate in putting my people in thepermanent underclass and that’s what it creates.


Nicky’s comment show how CSJ’s injustice frame, which aims to highlightshared grievances, fails to resonate with African American members who perceiveundocumented immigrants as an economic threat to Black workers. Despitedeploying the injustice frame in coalition meetings and activities, some memberscontinued to characterize African American and immigrant relations as a zero-sum scenario where gains for one group signal loses for the other. Nicky did notdiffer in social characteristics from other CSJ members who attended the march.Still, her comments suggest that labor market competition is the primary lensthrough which some makes sense of the impact of immigration reform on AfricanAmerican economic mobility.

In a previous quote, Karla described an open discussion among coalitionmembers about issues of labor market competition with immigrants. Severalrespondents, however, revealed that incidents like the one Karla discussed arerare. Members said that CSJ rarely addresses the common belief that Latinos takejobs from African Americans, despite the fact that some African Americans (evenwithin CSJ) hold that belief. Some reported feeling that speaking out againstan idea or campaign, such as immigration rights, will be perceived as counteringthe goals of CSJ and creating conflict. Many African Americans feared beingsingled-out or accused of being ignorant and causing turmoil within the coalition.Instead some chose to discuss these matters privately among themselves, as Nickyexplained:

They wanna skip over the real issues so they work on something that’s realsimple instead of dealing with the heart of the matter: Blacks are angry withLatinos and Latinos are resenting Blacks and if you don’t talk about it,you’re going to see some problems and I know that [this] is happening right



now, you know? That’s my concern about having all these meetings withoutreally getting into the issues …


Several respondents echoed Nicky’s sentiments that the organization does notalways “keep it real” and instead avoids a frank discussion about contentiousissues in efforts to avoid conflict. Although CSJ has constructed a frame thatresonates with certain Black members, avoiding to directly tackle concerns overimmigrants taking jobs from Blacks continued to challenge the organization’sgoal of constructing a sustainable multi-racial alliance.

To summarize, the case of CSJ illustrates how the injustice frame is particularlyresonant when tied to the social location of different-race constituents. Namely,CSJ’s framing strategies were most successful when immigrants were portrayed asneighbors and members of the same community to fight alongside for the rights ofSouth Los Angeles residents. However, as our findings show, African Americanmembers presented counter frames based on fears that growing immigrantdemands for citizenship poses a threat to African Americans getting their fairshare of civil rights. This became a stigmatized topic within coalition activitiesthat silence some Black members and, at best, create ambivalence about Latinosas trustworthy allies. Moreover, inaction and avoidance on the part of organizersresulted in missed opportunities to frame immigrant rights in a way that could notonly resonate with the daily experiences of African Americans, but also galvanizethem into action.

Prospects for Afr ican American and Immigrant Coal it ions forSocial Just ice

This article has examined the framing strategies of two multi-racial and ethnicgrassroots organizations in Los Angeles. Social movement framing providesa useful conceptual tool for understanding the process by which communityactivists strategically craft messages about immigrant rights, and their resonanceamong potential African American supporters. The few existing studies onframing in the immigrant rights movement show that frames appealing toAmerican values of family and work ethic were relatively successful in mobilizingbroad support for the 2006 Mega Marches (Bloemraad et al, 2011). Theimplications of these findings would suggest that such frames would have similarappeal to African Americans. However, we find that the immigrant worker andinjustice frames fall short of drawing in native Blacks owing to their commonlyheld perceptions of labor market competition with immigrants.

The immigrant worker frame fails to resonate with Blacks because inemphasizing the work ethic of immigrants as well as their contribution to theUS economy, it essentially draws a distinction to the stereotyped “lazy” African

Zamora and Osuji


American. While ILA organizers were fully aware of these distinctions, theirattempts to preserve the immigrant worker frame by expanding it to be inclusiveof Black workers nonetheless fell short of galvanizing Black constituents. CSJ’sframing strategy of highlighting Black and Latino commonality and sharedgrievances, on the other hand, was relatively successful in appealing to someBlack members. However, this frame is also limited in its appeal to potentialBlack allies due primarily to the tenuous relationship between African Americansand immigrant groups historically. These circumstances have made the pervasivenarrative of immigrant labor market competition extremely salient with AfricanAmericans. In response, Black coalition members presented counter frames drawingon civil rights discourse suggesting that immigrants present a threat to AfricanAmericans’ long pursuit of full civil rights and social and economic incorporationin to US society. Activists in both organizations, therefore, faced significantchallenges to the successful incorporation of Black allies.

However, the injustice frame appears to have more leverage in multi-racialcoalition-building, and as our data reveal, is most successful when frame articu-lators are of the same background as the target audience. The absence of AfricanAmericans in the organization, as is the case with ILA, thus presents real barriersto these efforts. Equally important, differences among movement organizers andmembers about the “core mission” – in this case whether African Americans aretreated as allies or legitimate members of a coalition – served to hinder coalition-building prospects of the organizations.

Moreover, we found that any gains made by the frame preservation strategiesare diminished when organizers avoid discussing the “elephant in the room” –

perceptions of job competition with immigrants – in attempts to avoid racialtension and conflict. As such, our findings suggest that both the immigrantworker and injustice frames can be substantially expanded or reframed bydrawing more centrally on African American cultural experiences of labor marketexclusion and segregation. Such an endeavor would require immigrant rightsactivists to acknowledge the deep sense of displacement among some AfricanAmericans in order to foster more fruitful discussion on issues of race, immigra-tion, job competition and citizenship.

Beyond concerns over labor market dynamics, scholars of race and immigrationhave shown that Latino anti-black prejudice may present additional barriers tothe formation of sustainable multi-racial collaboration (Sawyer, 2005; McClainet al, 2006). While our analysis of the framing strategies of these particularorganizers do not negate the existence of anti-Black prejudice among Latinos, orAfrican American concerns about Latinos as racially discriminatory and thusuntrustworthy allies, this was not a common theme among respondents. In fact,organizers rarely, if ever, mentioned it as a counter frame that challengedtheir mobilization efforts. Few CSJ members mentioned perceptions of Latinodiscrimination against Blacks. It is clear from the data that the primary concernwas that of “immigrants taking jobs from Blacks.”



Lastly, we do not overlook the fact that ILA and CSJ are representatives of smallnonprofit organizations that do not have the resources or staff required to addressthe myriad of members’ concerns or structural issues associated with labor marketinequality. In addition, they are but one small part of the social justice movementthat mobilizes constituents for immigrant rights. Nevertheless, examining theirorganizational frames and strategies illuminates the approaches that are mostuseful in efforts to build coalitions between US Blacks and Latino immigrants.

Further research examining the process of coalition building between AfricanAmericans and Latino immigrants is needed to uncover additional barriers to theformation of a multi-racial alliance for social change. The limitations of ourresearch make it evident that further research should examine immigrant workerperceptions of African Americans as potential allies in the struggle for immigrantrights. Central to this endeavor are comparative studies examining AfricanAmerican and immigrant coalitions across time and place. This would furtherenhance our understanding of how local context, including localized racerelations and labor market dynamics, structure opportunities for cross-racialand ethnic cooperation. These efforts may include analysis of Latino anti-Blackprejudice and how patterns of social distancing from Blacks affect prospects forcoalition building. In addition, social movement and immigration scholars alikeshould engage in broader inquiry into the wide range of strategies employed bygrassroots organizers in fostering new and effective alliances that can galvanizethe “New Civil Rights Movement.”

Acknowledgments

We thank the organizers and activists who so graciously shared their time andinsight with us. We also acknowledge Vilma Ortiz, Edward E. Telles, GasparRivera-Salgado, Stefan Timmermans, Caitlin Patler, Mienah Sharif and theanonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on previous drafts. This researchwas made possible with funding from the UCLA Center for Labor Research andEducation and the University of Pennsylvania Center for Africana Studies.

About the Authors

Sylvia Zamora is a Provost’s Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Sociologyat the University of Chicago. She earned a Ph.D. in Sociology from UCLA, whereshe undertook a multi-site study examining how migration to the US transformsMexicans’ conceptions of race and inequality in sending and receiving societies.Her published work on multi-racial coalition building appears in the editedvolume Just Neighbors?: Research on African American and Latino Relations in

Zamora and Osuji


the United States (Russell Sage Foundation Press, 2011). Currently, she ispreparing a book manuscript based on her doctoral research.

Chinyere Osuji is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University atCamden. She is a former Postdoctoral Fellow of the University of Pennsylvania’sCenter for Africana Studies and received her Ph.D. in Sociology from UCLA.A former Fulbright recipient, she has received awards for her work from theAmerican Sociological Association and the Population Association of America.Osuji is continuing her interest in inter-racial and inter-ethnic relations in hercurrent book project comparing race relations in the United States and Brazilthrough examining the lives of Black-white interracial couples in both societies.

References

Babb, S. 1996. A True American System of Finance: Frame Resonance in the US LaborMovement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review 61(6): 1033–1052.

Bean, F.D., J.D. Bachmeier, S.K. Brown and R. Tafoya-Estrada. 2011. Immigration andLabor Market Dynamics. In Just Neighbors? Research on African American and LatinoRelations in the U.S., eds. E.E. Telles, M. Sawyer and G. Rivera-Salgado, 37–60.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Benford, R.D. 1993. Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. SocialForces 71(3): 677–701.

Benford, R.D. 1997. An Insider’s Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective.Sociological Inquiry 67(4): 409–430.

Benford, R.D. and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: AnOverview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.

Bloemraad, I., K. Voss and T. Lee. 2011. The Protests of 2006: What Were They,How Do We Understand Them, Where Do We Go? In Rallying for Immigrant Rights:The Fight for Inclusion in 21st Century America, eds. K. Voss and I. Bloemraad, 3–43.Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Bystydzienski, J.M. and S.P. Schacht. 2001. Forging Radical Alliances across Difference:Coalition Politics for the New Millennium. Lanham, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldPublishers.

Carter, N. 2007. The Black/White Paradigm Revisited: African Americans, Immigration,Race, and Nation in Durham. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.

Charles, C.Z. 2009. Won’t You Be My Neighbor?: Race, Class, and Residence in LosAngeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Diamond, J. 1998. African-American Attitudes towards United States Immigration Policy.International Migration Review 32(2): 451–470.

Dobbie, D. and K. Richards-Schuster. 2008. Building Solidarity through Difference:A Practice Model for Critical Multicultural Organizing. Journal of Community Practice16(3): 317–337.

Edmonston, B. and J.S. Passel. 1992. Immigration and Immigrant Generations in PopulationProjections. International Journal of Forecasting 8(3): 459–476.



Escobar, M. 2010. Producing Viable Migrant Families: Dominant Immigrant RightsDiscourse and Imprisoned Migrant Mothers. Paper presented at the Law and SocietyAssociation Annual Meeting; 27 May, Chicago, IL.

Fisher, K. 1997. Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe. Sociological Research Online 2(3),http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/3/4.html, last accessed 17 July 2014.

Foner, P.S. 1950. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass. Vol. 2. New York:International Publishers.

Frey, W.H. and R. Farley. 1993. Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in Multiethnic MetroAreas: Findings from the 1990 Census. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,Population Studies Center. Research Report.

Fujiwara, L.H. 2005. Immigrant Rights Are Human Rights: The Reframing of ImmigrantEntitlement and Welfare. Social Problems 52(1): 79–101.

Gamson, W.A., B. Fireman and S. Rytina. 1982. Encounters with Unjust Authority.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Gleeson, S. 2010. Labor Rights for All? The Role of Undocumented Immigrant Status forWorker Claims Making. Law & Social Inquiry 35(3): 561–602.

Gleeson, S. and R. Gonzales. 2010. Wasted Talent and Hard Work: An Evaluation ofFraming in the Immigrant Rights Movement. Paper presented at the Law and SocietyAssociation Annual Meeting; 27 May, Chicago, IL.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of the Experience.New York: Harper Colophon.

Gonzales, A. 2009. The 2006 Mega Marchas in Greater Los Angeles: Counter-hegemonicMoment and the Future of El Migrante Struggle. Latino Studies 7(1): 30–59.

Gordon, J. and R. Lenhardt. 2007. Conflict and Solidarity between African American andLatino Immigrant Workers. University of California, Berkeley Law School. Report filedfor The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity.

Hallgrimsdottir, H.K., R. Phillips and C. Benoit. 2006. Fallen Women and RescuedGirls: Social Stigma and Media Narratives of the Sex Industry in Victoria, BC, from1980 to 2005. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 43(3):265–280.

Henry, C.P. 1980. Black-Chicano Coalitions: Possibilities and Problems. Western Journal ofBlack Studies 4(4): 222–232.

Johnson, J.H. Jr. and M.L. Oliver. 1989. Interethnic Minority Conflict in Urban America:The Effects of Economic and Social Dislocations. Urban Geography 10(5): 449–463.

Johnson, J.H. Jr., W.C. Farrell Jr. and C. Guinn. 1997. Immigration Reform and theBrowning of America: Tensions, Conflicts, and Community Instability in MetropolitanLos Angeles. International Migration Review 31(4): 1055–1095.

Johnson, K.R. 2005. African American and Latina/o Cooperation in ChallengingRacial Profiling. In Neither Enemies nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos, eds.A. Dzidzienyo and S. Oboler, 247–263. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, K.R. and B.O. Hing. 2007. The Immigrant Rights Marches of 2006 and theProspects for a New Civil Rights Movement. Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties LawReview 42: 99–138.

Kaufmann, K.M. 2003. Cracks in the Rainbow: Group Commonality as a Basis for Latinoand African-American Political Coalitions. Political Research Quarterly 56(2): 199–210.

Lim, N. 2001. On the Back of Blacks? Immigrants and the Fortunes of African Americans. InStrangers at the Gates: New Immigrants in Urban America, ed. R. Waldinger, 186–271.Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Zamora and Osuji


Markowitz, L.P. 2009. How Master Frames Mislead: The Division and Eclipse ofNationalist Movements in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(4):716–738.

Marrow, H. 2009. New Immigrant Destinations and the American Colour Line. Ethnic andRacial Studies 32(6): 1037–1057.

Martinez, L. 2011. Mobilizing Marchers in the Mile-high City: The Role of Community-based Organizations. In Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight For Inclusion in 21stCentury America, eds. K. Voss and I. Bloemraad, 123–141. Los Angeles, CA: Universityof California Press.

Massey, D.S. 1995. The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States. Population andDevelopment Review 21(3): 631–652.

McAdam, D., J.D. McCarthy and M.N. Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on SocialMovements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

McClain, P. et al. 2006. Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants’ Views ofBlack Americans. Journal of Politics 68(3): 571–584.

Meyer, S.G. 2001. As Long As They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and RacialConflict in American Neighborhoods. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Milkman, R. 2006. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the U.S. LaborMovement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mirola, W.A. 2003. Asking for Bread, Receiving a Stone: The Rise and Fall ofReligious Ideologies in Chicago’s Eight-hour Movement. Social Problems 50(2):273–293.

Mix, T.L. 2011. Rally the People: Building Local‐environmental Justice GrassrootsCoalitions and Enhancing Social Capital. Sociological Inquiry 81(2): 174–194.

Mooney, P.H. and S.A. Hunt. 1996. A Repertoire of Interpretations. The SociologicalQuarterly 37(1): 177–197.

Morris, A.D. 1993. Birmingham Confrontation Reconsidered: An Analysis of the Dynamicsand Tactics of Mobilization. American Sociological Review 58(5): 621–636.

Narro, V., K. Wong and J. Shadduck-Hernández. 2007. The 2006 Immigrant Uprising:Origins and Future. New Labor Forum 16(1): 49–56.

Oboler, S. and A. Dzidzienyo eds. 2005. Flows and Counterflows: Latinas/os, Blackness, andRacialization in Hemispheric Perspective. In Neither Enemies nor Friends: Latinos,Blacks, Afro-Latinos, 3–35. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Osuji, C. 2010. Building Power for “Non-citizen Citizenship:” A Case Study of TheMulti-ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network (MIWON). In Low-wage WorkerOrganizing and Advocacy: The L.A. Model, eds. R. Milkman, J. Bloom and V. Narro,89–105. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Pastor, M., J. De Lara and J. Scoggins. 2011. All Together Now: African Americans,Immigrants and the Future of California. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Report for the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII).

Patler, C.C. 2010. Alliance-building and Organizing for Immigrant Rights: The Case of theCoalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. In Low-wage Worker Organiz-ing and Advocacy: The L.A. Model, eds. R. Milkman, J. Bloom and V. Narro, 71–88.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Reese, E. and G. Newcombe. 2003. Income Rights, Mothers’ Rights, or Workers’ Rights?Collective Action Frames, Organizational Ideologies, and the American Welfare RightsMovement. Social Problems 50(2): 294–318.



Rodrigues, H.A. and G.M. Segura. 2004. A Place at the Lunch Counter: Latinos, African-Americans, and the Dynamics of American Race Politics. Paper presented at the LatinoPolitics: The State of the Discipline conference; 30 April – 1 May, College Station, TX.

Rusch, L. 2010. Rethinking Bridging: Risk and Trust in Multiracial Community Organizing.Urban Affairs Review 45(4): 483.

Sandoval, C. 2010. Citizenship and the Barrier to Black and Latino Relations in Chicago.NACLA Report on the Americas 43(6): 36–45.

Sawyer, M. 2005. Racial Politics in Multiethnic America: Black and Latina/o Identitiesand Coalitions. In Neither Enemies nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos, eds.A. Dzidzienyo and S. Oboler, 265–279. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sawyer, M. 2008. Race, African Americans and the Immigrant Rights Movement. Souls10(1): 42–49.

Sawyer, M. 2011. Politics in Los Angeles. In Just Neighbors? Research on African Americanand Latino Relations in the United States, eds. E. Telles, M.Q. Sawyer and G. Rivera-Salgado. 177–198. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Small, M.L. 2004. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Snow, D. and R. Benford. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.International Social Movement Research 1(1): 197–217.

Tarrow, S. 1996. States and Opportunities: The Political Structuring of Social Movements.In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. D. McAdam, J.D. McCarthy andM.N. Zald, 41–61. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Telles, E., M. Sawyer and G. Rivera-Salgado. 2011. Just Neighbors? Research on AfricanAmericans and Latino Relations in the United States. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. The Hispanic Population: 2010, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf, accessed 18 June 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County Quickfacts: Los Angeles County, California,http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html, accessed 16 February 2012.

Vaca, N.C. 2004. The Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict between Latinos andBlacks and What It Means for America. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers.

Waldinger, R.D. 1996. Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Waldinger, R.D. and M.I. Lichter. 2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and theSocial Organization of Labor. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Warren, M.R. 2001. Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize AmericanDemocracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zald, M.N. 1996. Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing. In Comparative Perspectiveson Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and CulturalFramings, eds. D. McAdam, J.D. McCarthy and M.N. Zald, 261–274. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Zamora, S. 2011. Framing Commonality in a Multiracial, Multiethnic Coalition. RussellSage Foundation. In Just Neighbors? Research on African American and Latino Relationsin the United States, eds. E. Telles, M.Q. Sawyer and G. Rivera-Salgado, 299–322.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zuo, J. and R.D. Benford. 1995. Mobilization Processes and the 1989 Chinese DemocracyMovement. The Sociological Quarterly 36(1): 131–156.

Zamora and Osuji


http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html

Documents

Mobilizing African Americans for immigrant rights: Framing strategies in two multi-racial coalitions