Talking Immigration Issues: Three Studies

7/30/2019 Talking Immigration Issues: Three Studies

1/23

Communications Research:

Talking Immigration Issues:

Three Studies


2/23

AcknowledgmentsThis report was written by Loren Siegel of Loren Siegel Consulting with guidance from JulieRowe, Eleni Delimpaltadaki Janis, and Juhu Thukral of The Opportunity Agenda. This report isbased on research conducted by First Research, Lake Research Partners, and Anat Shenker-Osorioof ASO Communications. The research conducted by Lake Research Partners was managed andfunded primarily by the California Immigrant Policy Center with assistance and guidance from TheOpportunity Agenda and others. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, with supportand guidance from The Opportunity Agenda, helped to fund and shape the research conducted by FirstResearch. The Opportunity Agenda commissioned the research conducted by Anat Shenker-Osorio.This report was designed and produced by Christopher Moore of The Opportunity Agenda.

The Opportunity Agendas Immigrant Opportunity initiative is funded with project support from

Carnegie Corporation of New York, Four Freedoms Fund, U.S. Human Rights Fund, Oak Foundation,Unbound Philanthropy, and the Ford Foundation, with general operating support from Open SocietyFoundations. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.

June 2012

About

The Opportunity AgendaThe Opportunity Agenda was founded in 2004 with the mission of building the national willto expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, theorganization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions thatexpand opportunity for everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizesand translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions; uses communicationsand media to understand and inuence public opinion; and identies and advocates for policiesthat improve peoples lives. To learn more about The Opportunity Agenda, go to our website atwww.opportunityagenda.org.

The Opportunity Agenda is a project of Tides Center.


3/23i

Table of ContentsIntroduction 1

Findings: The Headlines 4

Southern States Focus Groups 4

California Focus Groups and Survey 5

Comparison with NationalPublic Opinion Findings 6

Signicant Communications

Challenges 8

Principal Opportunities 13

Recommendations 16

Values 16

A Common-Sense Approach 16

Moving Forward Together:

Its About All of Us 17

Strategic Considerations 18

Conclusion 19


4/23

The Opportunity AgendaTalking Immigration Issues: Three Studies

1

IntroductionThe immigrants rights movement today faces major challenges. The last two years have seen a rash ofanti-immigrant laws proposed and enacted around the country; a federal and multi-state assault on theCitizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; problematic federal-state enforcement partnershipswhich have led to record-high rates of deportation; rogue enforcement operations such as those by Sheriff

Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona; and the failure of Congress to enact either comprehensivereform or even more limited measures, such as the DREAM Act, to x our awed immigration policies.

Over the same period, there have been some positive developments. The Obama administrationannounced that it would not seek to deport undocumented college students and certain other categoriesof immigrants. California passed a cluster of positive immigrant integration laws including the CaliforniaDream Act, which allows undocumented students to access state and private nancial aid for college; a

law prohibiting cities from requiring business owners to use the inaccurate and controversial E-Verifysystem for checking the immigration status of employees; and a law that prohibits the impounding ofcars at checkpoints solely because a driver is unlicensed. Immigrant groups in Nebraska have so fardefeated anti-immigrant state proposals and introduced a positive integration bill.

The coming years will continue to present critical opportunities to reframe the debate on immigrantinclusion, to inform policy discourse, and to build the effectiveness of immigrants civic engagement,communications, and advocacy. This period is expected to include candidates debates in advance ofnational, state, and local elections; a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of S.B.1070, Arizonas anti-immigrant law; numerous policy discussions; and volumes of media discourse, townhalls, and other conversations connected to immigrant integration.

The federal governments failure to pass reform legislation has shifted the debate to the states and has

necessarily led the immigrants rights movement to focus on issues of due process and discrimination.Racial proling, exclusion from public programs and services, and detention and deportation withoutdue process have become paramount concerns. To date, laws mirroring the repressive law adoptedin Arizona have been enacted in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah, and thus far,litigation by both immigrants rights advocates and the U.S. Justice Department has prevented the mostegregious sections of these laws from being implemented. On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Courtheard oral arguments on the Arizona case and is expected to announce its ruling by the end of June.

As the public debate around immigration evolves, it is crucial to adapt our overarching narrative tothe changing dynamics of the public discourse.1 In order to meet this communications challenge, TheOpportunity Agenda, in close consultation with its partners, undertook a set of research projects in 2011designed to deepen our collective understanding of how the public is grappling with the network of

issues surrounding immigrant integration and immigration policy.Focus Groups in Three Southern States: Given the anti-immigrant laws passed in Alabama,Georgia, and South Carolina, and the fact that these laws appear to have broad popular support, TheOpportunity Agenda commissioned First Research Group, based in North Carolina, to conduct a seriesof six focus groups in the region of the Southeast. The purpose of the research was to identify the

1 In 2008, The Opportunity Agenda worked with 150 immigrants rights groups throughout the country to develop a newcore narrative for the movementa set of broad themes and values that will help to connect with persuadable audiences and buildsupport for change. The pro-immigration narrative that emerged from this process has three main elements: (1) Workable Solutions; (2)Upholding Our Nations Values; and (3) Moving Forward Together. They represent a set of ideas about pragmatism, national principles,and progress through cooperation.


5/23


2

themes and messages around immigration issues that could inuence target audiences to oppose anti-immigrant measures and support more positive immigration policies. Two focus groups were held ineach of three different locations, which represented a range of immigration policies, both positive and

negativeGreenville, SC (African-American and Latino voters), Birmingham, AL (low-income AfricanAmericans and progressive white voters)- where immigration policies have been negative, and Nashville,TN (Asian-American and progressive white voters) where there has been more success in discouraginganti-immigrant legislation - during the months of May and June in 2011. First Research Group prepareda report, Southern Perceptions of Immigration Reform: Inuencing the Discussion by UnderstandingSouthern Voters Perceptions of Immigrants, Immigration, and the Comprehensive Immigration ReformDebate. The reports Executive Summary with recommendations is attached as Appendix I.

Focus Groups and Survey in California: The Opportunity Agenda partnered with the CaliforniaImmigrant Policy Center and commissioned Lake Research Partners of Washington, DC to conduct bothqualitative and quantitative research focusing on anti-immigrant enforcement policies in general andSecure Communities in particular.2 Lake Research Partners conducted ve focus groups with swing votersduring the months of November and December, 2010: college-graduate Anglo women (Los Angeles),Latinos and Latinas (Los Angeles), African-American women and men (Los Angeles), and two groupswith non-college-graduate Anglo women and men (Riverside). Participants were recruited based on theirswing position on immigration, meaning they did not feel strongly one way or the other about whetherimmigration was good or bad. The focus groups were followed by a survey of 800 registered votersplus oversamples of 100 African-American and 100 Asian-American registered voters. The researchersMessage Recommendations on Combating Secure Communities are attached as Appendix II.

Language Analysis: To develop a deeper understanding and critique of the language used in thepublic discourse about immigration, by pro- and anti-immigrant advocates as well as the media, TheOpportunity Agenda commissioned the ASO Communications strategic communications consulting rmto conduct an analysis of this language. Using a variety of techniques from cognitive linguisticsaeld dedicated to understanding how people process information and communicateASO analyzed

1,200 data points from current language about immigrants and immigration.3 The data sources includedmaterials from both pro- and anti-immigrant advocacy organizations, popular discussion of the topicon blogs and in chat rooms, and media coverage. Based principally on metaphor analysis catalogingthe commonplace non-literal phrases that people automatically and unconsciously use to make sense ofcomplexity ASO made a series of recommendations about language to avoid and language to employwhen communicating about immigrants and immigration policy. A summary of the consultants report,Migrating Our Message: A Language Analysis of Immigration, is attached as Appendix III. Becausethis research differs in several key ways from public opinion research, we have not included its insightsas ndings, but rather include the implications of those insights throughout the report.

Taken as a whole, the research ndings provide a deeper understanding of public attitudes during thisperiod of mounting frustration with federal inaction. It shows that inaction on immigration compounded

by severe economic problems has produced a political environment in which voters are willing to considerincreasingly draconian solutions. Today, even traditionally supportive constituencies such as progressivevoters are not immune to xenophobic rhetoric.

2 Secure Communities is a federal initiative that allows state and local police to check the ngerprints of an individual they arebooking into a jail against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration databases. If there is a hit in an immigration data-base, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is automatically notied, even if the person has not been convicted of any criminalact. Where implemented, the program has led to racial and ethnic proling, mistakenly targeted U.S. citizens and legal residents, andundermined public safety by making immigrants fearful of reporting actual crimes.3 Data points are simply items of factual information derived from researchin this case, the use and context of specic wordsfound in a range of written materials.


6/23


3

The research also identies important entry points for steering the public away from repression andtoward progressive reform. Focus group and survey ndings suggest that in spite of their fears and generallack of empathy for undocumented immigrants, there are lines the public is unwilling to crosslines that

they consider inimical to basic American values of fairness, balance, and due process. The ndings alsoshow that effective public education has the capacity to alter some of the publics most fact-challengedideas. For example, the cognitive linguistic analysis makes a number of ndings and recommendationsabout how to reinvent some of the ways in which advocates speak and write about immigrants andimmigration so that we do not unintentionally invoke unhelpful metaphors and do begin to break downthe barriers and biases that lead voters to support anti-immigrant policies.

It is important to bear in mind that this body of research raises as many questions as it answers. Manyof the ndings are based on focus group research, which is qualitative research that cannot be projectedonto a larger universe of people. Such research, however, is important because it allows us to exploreparticipants concerns in their own words, determine their intensity of interest, and discover the sourcesof their ideas and opinions. The linguistic research reveals how people automatically and unconsciouslymake sense of complexity, in this case about immigrants and immigration. A series of suggestions emergedfrom the research about how to use language to win hearts and minds over the long run.


7/23


4

Findings:

The HeadlinesWe commissioned opinion research in two regions of the country where immigration is viewed as amajor issue: California and the Southern states of South Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. Californiasrelationship with Mexico is ancient and many generations of Latinos have called California their home.New immigrants have a relatively easy time integrating themselves into the social, economic, and culturallife of the state. However, the South is a different story. New immigrants have been settling there onlyrelatively recently. Fear of the new, combined with the general conservatism of even the more progressivesegments of the population, has created barriers to integration and voter support for repressive legislation.

Major ndings from the research projects include:

Southern States Focus Groups

1. Participants from every group, including African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, andpersuadable whites, believed that undocumented immigrants, whom they equated with Latinos,were a direct threat to their economic stability. Economic concerns drove their negative attitudesabout immigrants. Advocates should not take for granted traditional progressive audiences inthis part of the country.

2. Participants across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressed strong opposition toillegal immigration.

3. Most participants did not believe that comprehensive reform was necessary. Rather, they tended

to support the stricter enforcement of current laws and supported states rights arguments forimplementing stricter measures, if necessary. Most participants opposed a path to citizenshipbecause they viewed it as rewarding criminal behavior and as unfair to those who have done itthe right way.

4. Participants believed that state and local law enforcement should provide federal lawmakers withthe benet of their knowledge and help them enforce whatever statutes are enacted under thefederal umbrella. They saw this as a balanced solution.

5. When faced with facts that they were not aware of and did not expect to be true, participantsexpressed discomfort with some enforcement realities and said they wanted the system to be fair.They objected to the separation of families during the immigration enforcement process, and toracial proling. They opposed policies that would allow imprisonment and deportation without a

hearing.6. When researchers exposed participants to a series of facts, they were most surprised by the time

and resources a deportation operation would cost. Even the staunchest supporters of deportationreconsidered their support for deportation policies when they learned that it would take 34 yearsand cost $285 billion to deport everyone who is currently here without documentation.

7. The messages that appealed most to these participants dened the debate in terms offundamental fairness, maintaining Americas core identity, and reecting Americas values. Forinstance, participants were troubled by the possibility that some policies caused due processviolations, and in these cases, the danger to the values most people hold about the importance ofdue process was more compelling than protecting the rights of particular people.


8/23


5

California Focus Groups and Survey

1. Focus group participants across gender, racial, and ethnic spectrums worried that immigration

created competition for scarce jobs. They also believed undocumented immigrants beneted fromadvantages in American society but did not contribute via taxes and that they reaped benetsthey did not sow.

2. Californians believed the system was broken. They were solution-oriented, and in the absenceof any other solution, they defaulted to tougher enforcement policies. But given the solution ofcomprehensive immigration reform (CIR), including a path to citizenship, they overwhelminglyagreed with that approach and rejected an enforcement-only policy.

3. When researchers introduced CIR as a potential solution to many immigration issues, votersembraced this idea, and their support for a more aggressive enforcement system decreased.

4. Facts and statistics about immigration helped bring clarity to the discussion. When confrontedwith data that challenged core beliefs, however, voters did not reject their core belief; instead,

they rejected the data. Advocates should not anchor their messages in facts.5. Balance and fairness were the key values that voters wanted to see reected in immigration

policies.

6. The strongest critiques of the Secure Communities program were that it lacked transparency,enforcement was inconsistent and unfair, it didnt give local government a voice, it did notapprehend criminals, and it did not make communities safer.

7. Messages should sound hopeful and be solution-oriented, acknowledge this is a serious andimportant issue, emphasize that immigrants want to integrate and contribute, and invoke thevalues of balance and fairness.


9/23


6

Comparison with

National Public

Opinion FindingsThe focus group research ndings are both consistent and at variance with recent national public opinionsurvey ndings. High levels of joblessness have historically led to the scapegoating of immigrants in thiscountry. The fears and insecurities expressed by participants in both the Southern and California focus

groups are consistent with recent national surveys indicating that the perception that undocumentedimmigrants are a directthreat to American jobs may be increasing. A June 2010 Pew Research Centersurvey showed that at that time, only 30 percent thought undocumented immigrants took jobs awayfrom Americans. 4 But a survey conducted in August-September of 2011 found that 57 percent of U.S.adults felt that waya signicant increase in a relatively short period of time.5

The hostility of Southern focus group participants to comprehensive reform and their expressed relianceon enforcement-only approaches are not reected in national survey data. Californians beliefs are morerepresentative of U.S. public opinion overall that the system is broken and that comprehensive reform,which combines better enforcement with a path to citizenship, is the right solution to the problem.Prioritizing enforcement while at the same time supporting CIR is the norm in the U.S. today. An August2011 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute asked respondents to choose which oftwo statements came closest to their own views:

First Statement: The best way to solve the countrys illegal immigration problem is to secure ourborders and arrest and deport all those who are here illegally.

Second Statement: The best way to solve the countrys illegal immigration problem is to bothsecure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already inthe U.S.

Thirty-six percent chose the rst statement and 62 percent chose the second. 6

The across-the-board hostility towards undocumented immigrants expressed by many Southern focusgroup participants who are members of constituencies thought to be persuadable, such as progressivewhites and African Americans, was also out of step with opinion nationwide. Most focus group

participants opposed a path to citizenship on the grounds it would reward criminal behavior. Asnoted above, most Americans support a path to citizenship if certain conditions are met and although amajority of 55 percent say they have an unfavorable view of illegal immigrants,7 a larger majority

4 June 2010 Political Survey, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press at http://www.people-press.org/2010/06/24/june-2010-political-survey/.5 Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2011, German Marshall Fund at http://www.gmfus.org/wp-content/les_mf/ttimmigration_nal_web32.pdf.6 Public Religion Research Institute, Pluralism, Immigration and Civic Integration Survey, August 1-14, 2011. See also FoxNews Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). Dec. 5-7, 2011.7 Religion, Values, and Immigration Reform: National Survey, Public Religion Research Institute, April 2010. An even largermajority (62 percent) had an unfavorable view of undocumented immigrants.


10/23


11/23


8

Signicant

Communications

ChallengesVoters are concerned about economic competition

Fears of job competition and loss and depressed wages were apparent in both California and the Southernstates focus groups. This public opinion research was conducted in May and June, 2011 when the nationsunemployment rate was 9.1 percent, a gure little changed from the preceding ve months.9 The ratein California was considerably higher11.8% in June.10 The three Southern states where focus groupswere held were also experiencing higher rates than the national average: Tennessee at 9.8%; Alabamaat 9.9%; and South Carolina at 10.5%.11 For African Americans and Latinos, who were included in thefocus group research as well as the California survey, job prospects were even dimmer. Business Insiderdescribed the African-American rate of 16.2% as Depression level.12 The unemployment rate amongLatinos was 11.6%, a gure that had remained more or less constant since the beginning of that year.13Still in the grip of an economic crisis, the American public was not in a generous mood.

Participants in the California focus groups across gender, racial, and ethnic spectrums worried thatimmigration was creating competition for scarce jobs. Participants in the Southern focus groupsperceived an entire class of people who have not only gotten away with crossing the borders without

permission but are rewarded with jobs being denied to real Americans and receive government benetsthat ordinary Americans are not afforded.14 One of the major research ndings was that at the momentthese participants believe that the illegal immigration problem is overwhelming and a direct threat totheir economic stability.15

The belief that illegal immigration was negatively impacting the countrys economy crossed racialand ethnic lines. African-American participants in both the Southern and California groups acceptedthe anti-immigrant movements rhetoric about illegals stealing jobs from real Americans (althoughAfrican-American participants were also more open to the idea that big corporations were to blame forencouraging undocumented workers here because they will settle for lower wages). Latino participantsalso agreed that undocumented immigrants had a negative economic impact on jobs and wages (althoughthey pushed back on the notion that illegal immigrants are or should be synonymous with the Latino

population).16

9 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.10 http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/.11 http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/.12 John Ellis, Black Unemployment Jumps to Depression Levels,Business Insider, June 20, 2011 at http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-20/politics/29972272_1_unemployment-rate-young-black-men-age-cbs-news-reports.13 HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH 2011: An Update on the Economic Well-Being of the Latino Population, Joint EconomicCommittee, U.S. Congress, September 15, 2011, at http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=69f69196-7bf4-410f-a4d4-57af985dda6e.14 First Research, Southern Perceptions of Immigration Reform, October 2011, p.17 (hereinafter FR).15 FR, p. 12.16 Lake Research Partners, Developing a Communication Plan on Enforcement Policies for the California Immigrant Policy
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/


12/23


9

Given the fact that the economic picture is likely to change only very incrementally in the near term,especially for the more vulnerable segments of the population (African Americans, Latinos, workerswithout a college education), what does cognitive linguistics tell us about how to change the conversation

about the role of immigrants in our economy, and allay fears that they are stealing scarce jobs fromreal Americans? The analysis suggests that advocates own language can sometimes contribute to thepublics mixed feelings about immigrants contributions to the economy:

In an earnest desire to garner attention and sympathy for immigrants, at times you portraythem as helpless victims. Or problems to be addressedor coped with. And while this surelymeans the rules regarding immigrants are the problem, sometimes the language implies its thepeople themselves.17

Further, Its very hard to pivot from victim to valuable members of society. Language that implies thatimmigrants are the problem (e.g., we must address the more than 12 million immigrants), or that theyare akin to animals (e.g., police are on the huntfor immigrants), can be at cross-purposes with theimmigration movements goals of garnering support for positive immigration polices. Characterizing

immigrants as victims undermines claims that immigrants positively contribute to our economy and oursociety by implying helplessness that requires protection, and potentially, special treatment.

Audiences had negative perceptions of undocumented immigrants and lacked basic

information about the realities of current immigration policy

Focus group participants drew a distinction between the right way and the wrong way to immigrate.Those who immigrate the right way were looked upon with favor. Their immigration was viewed asan opportunity for them to work hard and have a new chance at a successful life. Those who came thewrong way were seen as freeloaders and lawbreakers, i.e., criminals. One participant said:

I know that there are a lot of people that come here from other countries that go through thewhole process of getting their visa and things like that but I know that there are a large number

of people that are illegally living here and gaining health care and not paying taxes and stuff likethat.18

Given their negative perceptions, the Southern focus group participants were largely unmoved by thehardships undocumented immigrants faced or their constant fear of detection and deportation. 19 Acommon sentiment was that those who come here without authorization know the risks involved,up to and including deportation, and are therefore not deserving of our sympathy. Another was thatundocumented immigrants dont want to integrate into American society. As one participant put it, Ithink if you come over here illegal you have no intention of becoming a citizen. Theres no intentionthere.20 Some of the Southern participants expressed the belief that undocumented immigrants havechosen this path because they are unwilling to do the work required to gain citizenship, that they arehere solely to game the system and that the challenges they face are solely of their own making.21 Most

of the participants in the Southern focus groups also viewed Latinos as synonymous with undocumented

Center, March 2011, p. 13 (hereinafter LRP); FR, pp.7-9.17 ASO Communications, Migrating Our Message: A Language Analysis of Immigration, May 2011, p. 15 (hereinafterASO).18 FR, p. 17.19 Undocumented immigrants who came to this country as children receive a bit more sympathy, even from the Southernparticipants, most of whom believe it is unfair for those children to be penalized for their parents decisions: I think once you havebeen here for so long, your parents brought you over here, and your whole life is hereThey are just thrust into a society that yourenot even familiar with. Your whole culture is the United States(FR, p. 18). Latino participants in particular express great sympathy forthese young adults and feel that the countrys rejection of them is antithetical to our American identity (FR, p. 8).20 FR, p.19.21 FR, p.19.


13/23


10

immigrants and worried that illegal immigrants are taking over their cities.22 The positive associationsthat participants acknowledgedthat undocumented immigrants are hardworking and have close-knitfamily structuresdid not displace their deeply-felt negative views.

The negative misperceptions, of course, indicate how little native-born Americans understand aboutpatterns of immigration,23 immigration quotas, and how extraordinarily difcult it is to obtaindocumentation. It is difcult for participants to perceive the difculty or expense of obtaining theproper paperwork without an understanding of the obstacles within our own bureaucracy or the existingbacklog that keeps families separate for decades.24

Participants also had very little understanding of the difference between criminal and civil lawviolations. Several circumstances under which immigrants might be here without documentation arecivil, not criminal, offenses including a failure to depart after the expiration of a temporary visa. Butparticipants were quick to equate any violation with criminal, further marginalizing immigrants fromthe mainstream and creating barriers to empathy. Even when the difference between criminal and civil

law was explained, some participants were unmoved:

Debating criminal or civil laws is lost on most participants. The distinction tends to mattermore to those who are less punitive and dismissed by those who want to be more punitive. Itought to be a criminal offense was a repeated statement.25

The linguistic analysis shows a number of examples of how the language of immigration used by themedia, by anti-immigrant spokespeople, and, to a certain extent, by pro-immigrant advocates reinforcesnegative stereotypes about and attitudes towards immigrants, and suggests alternative language thatcould, over time, change the framework within which Americans tend to evaluate public policy. Forexample, in a discussion of the role conceptual metaphors play in shaping beliefs,26 the analysis observesthat Sadly, the prevailing metaphor here is IMMIGRATION AS WAR:

In this framework, immigrants are invaders and America is under siege. The governmentand

self-appointed vigilanteseither defend her or fail to do so While advocates do not favorthis language, were not immune to it. In our version of immigration as war, the roles are quitedifferent. Immigrants arent invaders, theyre victims. 27

Language that emphasizes immigrants as victims, bills targeting undocumented immigrants orimmigrants are prey to unscrupulous employers, has the effect of evoking the immigration-as-warmetaphor, which in turn suggests drama, conict, and chaos, which are not helpful themes when we areadvocating for sensible and reasoned policy change.

Another popular yet problematic metaphor is immigrants as water. This has been used very effectively byanti-immigrant advocates who repeatedly refer to the border as being foodedand inundatedwith wavesof immigrants. The immigrants as water metaphor also feeds into the anchor baby myth: Here we see

22 FR, p. 5.23 In fact, new immigration from Mexico has sputtered to a trickle. See Damien Cave, Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allureof Going North, The New York Times, July 6, 2011, at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigration.24 FR, p.19.25 LRP, p. 16.26 ASO describes metaphor analysis as cataloging the commonplace non-literal phrases in all speech. Noting patterns in theseexpressions reveals how people automatically and unconsciously make sense of complexity. Each metaphor brings with it entailments,or a set of notions it highlights as true about a concept. Priming people with varying metaphors has been shown to alter not just howthey speak but the ways they decide, unconsciously, what ought to be done about a given topic. [from ASOs 5-page summary datedSeptember 2011].27 ASO, p.4.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigrationhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigrationhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigrationhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigration


14/23


11

two domains come together to lend comprehensibility to pairing these two inoffensive words to makea potent pejorative.28 Using words likepipeline and fow tend to tap into this metaphor and makes itdifcult to see individual immigrants, just as a single drop of water in the ocean is impossible to spot.29

There is also a great deal of language in immigration advocates communications that implies thatimmigration is aproblem. Phrases like xing, solving, and addressing the immigration problem,while aimed at the immigration system, bleeds over into how people think about immigrants themselvesas an undifferentiated mass of people who are problems rather than assets to society.

Language that implies that immigrants dont want to become authorized is also problematic. Phraseslike we should require or they should submit to background checks imply that acquiescence must becoerced. Conversely, phrases such as we should allow or we can enable give a more accurate pictureof immigrants who seek to abide by our rules and standards but are thwarted from doing so.30

The terms legalizationand legal status can also create additional challenges. While most immigrationadvocates do not use the term illegal many use the term legalization, which still brings to mind a

legal framework. In other words, if someone needs to get legal or be legalized, the logic follows thathe or she is currently illegal. And people automatically equate illegalwith criminal. Once put into thecriminalframework, it is much harder to expect audiences to oppose due process violations. On the otherhand, advocates use of a path to citizenship provides a solution that is not mired in the legal frame.

Advocates communications are not always clear about the proper role for

government

Winning the publics support for the appropriate role of government is one of the greatest communicationschallenges advocates face, not only in the context of immigration reform, but in all areas of social justicepublic policy. We criticize the government both for its inaction in bringing about real reform and for itsoverreaction in violating due process principles. At the same time, we invoke the government as the entitythat must make things better. This contradiction adds to the confusion the American public already has

about the proper role of government in their lives, and this confusion was evident among our focusgroup participants.31

Focus group participants in both California and the South expressed frustration with the governmentsperceived lack of enforcement of existing federal laws. According to the California researchers:

Participants blame EVERYONE for the problems they see in the immigration system. Theybelieve the President and Congress are inactive on this issue and have not done enough to securethe border. They believe the Governor and state legislature can do more. They believe some localmayors are running sanctuary cities. They believe local police ofcers and sheriffs could bemore activeThe bad guys in this debateare bad because they are not taking action.32

The perceived lack of action drives participants to throw their support behind those who seem to be

doing something,33 including state legislatures. At the same time, some participants have bought intothe conservative myth that immigrants are a protected class that receives special treatment from the

28 ASO, p. 22.29 ASO, p. 22.30 ASO, p.20.31 The Opportunity Agenda recommends that social justice advocates emphasize government as a connector, a planner, able topave the way for progress. Our nations greatest leaps forward have always come when we have invested in an effective partnershipbetween government and our people. Quoted from Promoting Equitable and Sustainable Job Creation http://opportunityagenda.org/les/eld_le/2010.09.29PromotingEquitableAndSustainableJobCreation.pdf.32 LRP, p.19.33 LRP, p.17.


15/23


12

government. As one Southern participant put it: When I hear immigrant, the rst thing I think about isbeing illegal, no taxes, how they can come get businesses and ourish and its hard for us to get loans andstuff to start our businesses. They get a lot of perks.34 This caused participants to be even more resentful

of undocumented immigrants.

In the discourse about immigration, linguistic analysis points out that the government is both hero andvillainfor both pro- and anti-immigrant advocates:

For us, government is in the wrong on prolonged detention, poor treatment, inadequate visas,slow application processing and a whole slew of errors and omissions. However, it is also theactor we charge with improving the systemFor opponents, federal government has shirkedits responsibility in controlling the border and so certain states have valiantly taken up thechargenotwithstanding the frequent criticism, opponents also look to government, even at thefederal level, to take charge of this issueWe must articulate the desired role for governmentin immigration. While this surely includes criticism of its current failures, we cant tar thegovernment completely. Otherwise its very hard to buy that this incompetent entity is up to the

task of altering and improving what we have now.35

The analysis also observes that advocates tend to use the passive voice when discussing problems withthe system: the detention system has ballooned; three were arrested; detainees are transported.It argues that the passive voice hides responsibility and makes it harder to see who is doing what towhom. And harder to insist that decision-makers do things differently and be accountable for actionsthey and their subordinates take.36

Immigrant women are largely invisible outside of motherhood

The language analysis reports that discussions of gender and women in particular are absent from thediscourse. The exception is in the case of mothers who are often portrayed unfavorably as irresponsibleor as using their children to obtain citizenship.

34 FR, p.17.35 ASO, p.28.36 ASO, p.32.


16/23


13

Principal

OpportunitiesAudiences responded well to values-based arguments

The eld of cognitive linguistics tells us that people form their views about issues based more on theirexisting worldviewand valuesthan on the facts alone: When confronted with data that challengescore beliefs, voters do not reject their core belief; instead they reject the data.37 This round of researchfound that in spite of their generally negative views about undocumented immigrants, there were certainlines participants were not willing to cross. Among the Southern focus group participants:

There was a consensus across groups that in the pursuit of stricter enforcement theremustnotbean assaultonAmericanvalues.For example, a majority in each group believes that it goesagainst our values and core identity to provide no recourse for the young adults who were raisedto be American and now nd all avenues to the American dream blocked no matter how hardthey have worked.38

Government actions that troubled these participants included racial or ethnic proling, separation offamilies during the immigration enforcement process, and imprisonment without the benet of dueprocess.39 Some quotes from the focus groups illustrate participants discomfort with enforcementactivities they feel are antithetical to American values:

If I was a U.S. citizen but I was of Hispanic descent, I walked out of my house and I forgot my

license. I would not want the police to take me to jail and lock me up because I was Hispanic.40

It doesnt follow what our country is supposed to be set on. Its actually saying that ofcials cansuspect someone and actually prevent them from receiving a hearing. Thats not innocent untilproven guilty. Thats thrown into an underground jail cell and when we get to you we get to you.But we dont do that in this country, remember?41

Some immigrants are held here in prisonlike conditions without lawyers and without theopportunity to challenge their detention before a judge. I dont agree with that. I dont believe it.Yeah, it seems like that shouldnt happen here in this country.42

37 LRP, p.36.38 FR, p.10.39 A survey of Alabama adults conducted in November and December of 2011 showed signicant disquiet over the fairnessof that states new anti-immigrant law. Although 67 percent agreed there was a need for an immigration law, only 48 percent agreedthat the new state law was fair while 37 percent felt it was unfair (Center for Leadership and Public Policy, 2011 Survey on AlabamaImmigration Law, Nov. 1 Dec. 8, 2011). Extensive media coverage of the ongoing controversy surrounding the law may be havingan effect on traditionally conservative Alabamans. Stories about rallies and demonstrations against the Alabama law highlighting theharms to families and children, and reports of incidents like the mid-November arrest and detention of a German manager with Mer-cedes Benz for not having a drivers license appear to be chipping away at the laws initial popularity. (See Associated Press, Immigra-tion law: Mercedes manager from Germany arrested in Alabama, November 18, 2011).40 FR, p. 22.41 FR, p. 23.42 FR, p. 24.


17/23


14

The Southern states research indicated that Casting the anti-immigration movements enforcement-onlyapproach as thoughtlessly trampling on our nations values while portraying comprehensive reform asan intelligent policy response puts the anti-immigration movement on the defensive while upholding the

American values we hold dear.43

The California research found that balance and fairness are the key principles that voters want to seereected in immigration policies affecting California.44 Between the two, focusing on balance wasmore effective than highlighting fairness for several reasons:

Fairness may seem a more natural t, but right now life isnt fair for anyone in this economyor any Californian facing the realities of the states budget problems. Trying to grant fairness toundocumented immigrants could create a backlash. Fairness implies more leniency than balance,and voters are not looking for leniency. Balance not only implies reform but also suggests takingaction reasonable action where needed to correct the imbalance caused by the current brokeimmigration system.45

Audiences were more supportive of changing policies after receiving moreinformation about the current system

The fact that Americans, including those considered persuadable on immigration issues, are so unfamiliarwith how the immigration system works is a major impediment to winning them over to pro-immigrantpolicies. By the same token, information from a credible source that leads people to question theconventional wisdom can erode belief in xenophobic myths and open minds to other narratives. TheSouthern states research suggested that:

The communications efforts of comprehensive reform advocates will have to pull double-duty,educating the public before inuencing their position. If the attitudes expressed in these groups arereective of the public at-large, our political discourse has become so fact-challenged that mostwill have little concrete knowledge about immigration policy. Even among the most sympathetic

participants some assertions of abuse or departures from American values go challenged for lackof credibility.46

Certain facts can undermine arguments for stronger enforcement. For example, learning that it wouldtake 34 years and cost tax payers $285 billion to implement an effective deportation program gave eventhe staunchest supporters of deportation pause (although this information is a double-edged sword sinceit gives ammunition to those claiming our government has allowed the situation to get out of control).Other examples of facts that seemed to shake participants faith in an enforcement-only approach were:

u The absence of any kind of path to legality for undocumented immigrants who arrived here asyoung children and grew up in the States;

u The ability of ofcials to deport anyone they suspect of being illegal without the benet of due

process;u The ability to imprison immigrants for minor offenses without the benet of due process; and

u The inequality in the visa allotment process.47

43 FR, p. 11.44 LRP, p. 31.45 LRP, p. 36.46 FR, p. 11.47 FR, p. 23.


18/23


15

People are hungry for solutions

Participants in all the focus groups expressed the desire for a solution and impatience with the lack of

progress in nding one. Although frustration leaves people open to bad choices, it also gives advocatesthe opportunity to be the ones who can offer a solution that is actually workable and consistent withAmerican values. The California focus groups showed that left without a solution, people had to ndone on their own and tended to default to tougher enforcement policies.48 But they also showed thatwhen offered the alternative solution of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), participants felt itaddressed their major concerns and if it could happen they would be satised with this shift in policy.49This was conrmed by the California survey, which found that 79 percent of voters supported CIR:50Both CIR and S-Comm are initially popular. Voters want action and, in the absence of an alternative,they will default to aggressive enforcement. However,CIRismorepopular,hasadeeperbase,andawideraudience.51 According to the LRP study, S-Comm tends to get support when people hear messagesabout its original intent to deport individuals who commit serious crimes, but that support diminishessubstantially once they hear messages about the programs lack of transparency, the burden on localgovernments, and its negative impact on public safety and cooperation among witnesses to crime.

In addition to the problems surrounding the proper role of government noted above, the linguisticanalysis identied another language barrier that prevents some audiences from embracing the kinds ofworkable solutions advocates promote: comprehensive immigration reform means so many things as tomean virtually nothing.The public doesnt seem to know what this entails. Further, it reinforces the ideaof immigration as problem, just as welfare reform helped vilify public assistance. Finally, its a call toeliminate a bad without hope of building or creating a good.52

48 LRP, p. 6.49 LRP, p. 34.50 CIR was described as follows: Under this proposal, the federal government would manage border security and crack downon employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to reg-ister and obtain legal status, as long as they have not committed crimes, and then be put on a path to citizenship if they pay taxes, learnEnglish, and show they are contributing to their community.51 LRP, p. 21.52 ASO, p. 10.


19/23


16

RecommendationsWe recommend rst and foremost that advocates organize messages under a shared core narrative thatemphasizes values, common-sense approaches, and moving forward together.

Values

This body of research again underscores the importance of approaching the subject of immigrationthrough a values lens. The more we are able to show that the policies we advocate for are more in linewith our nations values than are anti-immigrant measures, the easier it will be to make the case forpositive policies rather than only reacting to bad ones. Its also important to communicate the manyvalues that native-born Americans have in common with immigrant Americans.

u Open with reminders about our nations core values. While audiences are surprised by,and sometimes moved by facts, they respond best to messages that speak to their core values.Frame messages around fundamental fairness, and Americas core identity. Messages should castenforcement-only approaches as violations of our nations values, highlighting in particular theimportance we place on due process, i.e., everyone gets his or her day in court and everyonemust have access to lawyers. For more persuadable audiences that lean towards more progressivepositions, we should offer CIR as a more reasoned policy that aligns with our values. Fairnessand balance are also important values to emphasize, particularly in discussions of enforcementissues.

u Emphasize the core values we all personally share. Audiences admired immigrantswhom they perceive to value work, family, and the American Dream. In focus groups, much ofthe discomfort often stemmed from uncertainty about immigrants whom they perceived as not

wanting to fully embrace these values. By highlighting the values we all have in common, andimmigrants commitment to the idea of being American, we decrease opponents ability to createdivisions and us vs. them discussions. Stress that immigrants understand American values,want to (and do) contribute to this country in positive ways, and that they strive to become apart of society.

A Common-Sense Approach

There is an underlying understanding that something is wrong with our immigration laws, and peoplewant to decrease undocumented immigration. Because audiences do not understand much about ourcurrent laws, they are open to most suggestions, whether those suggestions are friendly to immigrantsor not. Their central request is that someone do something about what they see as an overwhelming

problem.u Clearly and consistently state the problem. While we have framed the problem as a

broken system in the past, this research indicates that such a description is not clear enough.We should specically state which bad immigration policies are causing which problems, andwho we should pressure to x them. Communications should be specic enough to avoidimplying that immigration per se or undocumented immigrants themselves are problematic.

u Assign responsibility. We need to name the specic policies that are broken and describe howwe must x them, and who we should pressure to do it. Avoid using the passive voice in


20/23


17

describing problems and instead assign specic responsibility to specic actors. As the linguisticreport suggests:

Instead of the immigration system has ballooned, try Congress poured funds intodetention. Instead of immigration enforcement is plagued by try enforcement ofcialsignore human rights laws. Instead of detainees are transported, try ICE forcibly separatesfamilies. The active voice holds specic individuals or branches of government to accountrather than painting the entire government with the same brush.

u Criticism alone is not enough. When criticizing bad policies, always offer alternateapproaches. Audiences made clear that criticism alone would not sway them from supportingharsh enforcement policies, but they could be persuaded that such policies were not the bestapproach available.

u Balance is a driving theme. People want to decrease undocumented immigration, but thinkthat breaking up families and mistreating immigrants goes too far.

u Ascribe a positive role to government. Be careful about describing government as a villain(in introducing and implementing bad enforcement policies) when it also needs to be the heroof the story. One way to articulate the desired role for government is to describe pro-immigrantreforms as opportunities to move the country forward. Rather than harp on past and presentmistakes, framing the current problems as missed opportunities to have a working system,to live up to our ideals, to treat all fairly, allow us to describe what we dont want withoutcompletely vilifying government.53 Dont just talk about stopping harm; give audiences hope bydescribing reform as a chance to do good.

u Assing a role for states. In the South, acknowledge that states may have some good ideasabout how to change our immigration policies but that we need federal-level immigrationpolicies to ensure that our American values of fairness and equality are upheld.

Moving Forward Together: Its About All of Us

We need to nd ways to frame discussions about immigrants that include them, rather than just describethem. Immigrant Americans are part of our national and local communities, not guests or intruders, assome frames assert. Meanwhile, we should make the case that anti-immigrant policies hurt all of us,not just immigrant communities. They violate our values, bring out peoples worst instincts, and haveunintended consequences that hurt us all for the sake of the narrow ideological agenda of a few people.

u Emphasize the whole community, instead of drawing distinctions between us

and them. Rather than portray immigrants as victims of bad legislative policies, frame themas willing and enthusiastic contributors thwarted by policies that seek to interfere with thosecontributions. By portraying immigrants less as a them with which audiences have little incommon, we can focus on our similaritiesour shared values of family and work, our commondreams of a better life for our children, our desire to live in safe and thriving communities. Wecan then tell a story about how certain laws make our shared visions harder to reach.

u Choose the right spokespeople.Some of the best spokespeople are those who appear tobe objective about these laws and interested primarily in the overall health of the community,as opposed to the rights of a specic group or individual. For instance, a member of lawenforcement or a retired judge might better overcome an audiences skepticism about the

53 ASO, p. 29.


21/23


18

existence of due process violations than an immigrants rights advocate would. Additionally,those who can report on the systemic, rather than the individual, nature of these violationswill likely be the most effective in persuading people that we should change bad policies. For

example, members of law enforcement, faith leaders, teachers, and business peopleimmigrantand non-immigrant alikewho can tell stories of the negative impact of policies on wholesectors and communities help to show that these laws are adversely affecting more than just afew isolated individuals.

u Talk about all of the roles women play, beyond motherhood. Often it is assumed thatmessages about mothers are sympathetic to swing audiences. Unfortunately, this is not alwaysthe case and in fact, immigrant mothers are often portrayed unfavorably. Instead, we should talkabout the range of contributions immigrant women make.

Strategic Considerations

u Know the audience. Dont assume support among traditional members of the progressive

base, particularly in the South. People of color and persuadable whites are not all immediatelysympathetic to the problems that harsh enforcement policies cause immigrant communities.Audiences still need basic information about what is wrong with our immigration laws andpolicies and what we can do to x them.

u Use facts wisely. Facts are important, but too many confuse the debate. People will reject afact that contradicts a core belief. Choose facts that reect fairness and balance. For instance,Only 20 percent of undocumented immigrants caught up in enforcement tactics that can resultin deportation have committed the types of crimes that these programs purport to address.

u Consider language carefully. Using the word illegal is obviously damaging. But pro-immigration advocates use of getting legal and a path to legalization may unwittinglysupport the initial damaging term. If someone needs to get legal, it sounds like they arecurrently not legal and possibly even lack legal rights. Better language would be: pathway tocitizenship. We need a range of terms to replace illegal, not just one term. Possibilities includeunauthorized, out of status, without papers, and with no documentation currently. Thelinguistic report suggests:

Describe immigrants in the singular, and with more descriptors (an immigrant worker, aparent, a neighbor). Its not enough to avoid illegal. We need to put a face on immigrants.Dening them as individuals, who not only need but do, who not only struggle butcontribute, is critical. Two strategies for this are (1) refer to immigrants in the singular withan indenite article an immigrant (2) mention them by what they do gardeners, armers,ood producers, care takers and builders. Even making the small shift from undocumentedimmigrant to undocumented worker or undocumented residentwould help.54

54 ASO, p. 21.


22/23


19

ConclusionWhile audiences are by no means uniform in their thoughts about and reactions to immigration, thesynthesis of these three studies reveals a number of promising strategies for advocates to reach a range ofaudiences. In addition, our collective use of language tells us much about our and our larger communitysthoughts on the topics. With strategy, careful consideration of language and stories, and a drumbeat ofcommon themes, we can make signicant strides in improving dialogue around these issues, and set thestage for better immigration policy.


23/23

The Opportunity Agenda

568 Broadway

Suite 302

New York, NY 10012

Tel: 212.334.5977

Fax: 212.334.2656

www.opportunityagenda.org

Documents

Talking Immigration Issues: Three Studies