Since our last meta-analysis of public opinion research on attitudes towards criminal justice issues was published in August 2014, there has been a great deal of public discussion about the crisis of mass incarceration, and an unprecedented number of reforms have been enacted by states in every region of the country. Some of these reforms were voted into law by public referenda; others came about through the legislative process. Just to give the reader a sense of the scope of these changes, in 2014 and 2015, 16 states created or expanded opportunities to divert people away from the criminal justice system, 29 states took significant steps to reduce their prison populations, six states placed limits on solitary confinement, and 32 states established supports for individuals reentering the community after incarceration.3 Although little was accomplished by the legislative branch at the federal level in spite of bipartisan support for reform, the executive branch implemented important changes, signaling a move away from federal policies based on punishment and retribution. These included a record number of sentence commutations by President Barack Obama for people serving lengthy sentences for drug convictions4 and a ban on solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons.5 This relatively rapid about-face after four decades of increasing punitiveness has been met by little in the way of a public backlash. Except for some resistance to some specific measures from local police and prosecutors, recent surveys show that most Americans, including voters in the most conservative states, are on board.
This report is based on a review of about 50 public opinion surveys and polls, most of them conducted between June 2014 and June 2016. Many of them are based on state rather than national samples, reflecting the fact that most of the action has been at the state level. The research included covers American attitudes towards a range of policy issues that comprise the criminal justice reform agenda. By looking at the research holistically, we can see a definite pattern emerging as Americans’ attitudes towards crime, punishment, prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration evolve towards what some scholars are describing as a new “public penal philosophy away from a simplistic and one-dimensional emphasis on ‘toughness’ and towards a focus on effective, compassionate, and just goals.”6 A group of researchers who conducted an important study of Texas voters’ attitudes towards various criminal justice reforms believes the results of their study and others “suggest that a transformation in Americans’ sensibility about corrections may be occurring”:
Three core elements characterize this new sensibility about corrections. First, in policy choices, prison no longer automatically trumps other options, whether in how to sentence offenders or where to devote scarce resources… Second, offenders are no longer uniformly objectified and vilified as “the other” and seen as creatures having no worth… Third, and perhaps most important, offenders are now conceptualized as varying in risk level.7
The research also points to a number of longstanding and difficult challenges advocates still face as they push for meaningful and far-reaching change. These include the racialization of crime, the unhelpful dichotomy in the public discourse between “violent” and “nonviolent” crimes, and the American public’s tendency to attribute crime to individual rather than systemic causes. But clearly there is reason to be optimistic about the continuing process of reform. This is the time to be pro-active in promoting real solutions to the crisis of mass incarceration that are based on the values of justice, opportunity, voice, redemption/second chance, and community.
Methodology
The public opinion section of this report is based on a meta-analysis of attitudinal tracking surveys and recent public opinion studies by nationally known and reputable research organizations, media outlets, and issue groups. Most of the data examined are publicly available; some come from proprietary research that was made available to The Opportunity Agenda for the purposes of this report. We reviewed original data from more than 50 public opinion studies (see Appendix). These studies meet The Opportunity Agenda’s standards and best practices for quality and objective public opinion research, including appropriate sample size and a methodologically sound design.
Because this scan investigates existing opinion research, we are limited by the data in our ability to analyze the views of all demographic groups on all issues. Whereas surveys often include adequate samples of African Americans and more recently, Latinos, to disaggregate their views, this is generally not the case with Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other groups. Wherever the data allowed, we have analyzed separately and together the views of each identifiable demographic group for this report.
Since opinion research has largely adopted racial categories utilized by the federal government, this report uses these categories as appropriate. The categories are defined as follows:
White: any person who self-identifies as white only and non-Hispanic
Black: any person who self-identifies as black only
Hispanic: any person of any race who self-identifies as Hispanic
Asian: any person who self-identifies as Asian only
3 Rebecca Silber, Ram Subramanian, and Maia Spotts, “Justice in Review: New Trends in State Sentencing and Corrections 2014–2015,” The Vera Institute, May 2016.
4 Ibid., p. 6.
5 Juliet Eilperin, “Obama bans solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-bans-solitary-confinement-for-juveniles-in-federal-prisons/2016/01/25/056e14b2-c3a2-11e5-9693- 933a4d31bcc8_story.html.
6 Kevin M. Drakulich and Eileen M. Kirk, “Public Opinion and Criminal Justice Reform: Framing Matter,” Criminology & Public Policy 15 (1), 2016.
7 Angela J. Thielo, et al., “Rehabilitation in a Red State: Public Support for Correctional Reform in Texas,” Criminology & Public Policy 15(1), 2016.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Obama’s executive actions on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA+) on April 18. This case is of extreme importance to millions of immigrants and their families, to communities across the country, and to our national identity.
Here are a few tips on talking about the case and the oral argument:
Lead with values.
Family: At its core, DAPA is about keeping families together. Eighty-nine percent of those eligible for the program are parents of American citizens.
Justice: These programs are about justice for millions of workers, parents, students, and neighbors who just want to contribute to and participate in this country, like anyone else.
Our National Identity: This case is about who we are as a country―one who welcomes or one who excludes. We can’t allow the rhetoric of fear and hate win out over common sense and inclusion. The extremists who brought this case to the court are blocking real solutions that affect real people and families, and they’re doing it to make a political point.
Stress that DAPA and DACA+ are commonsense solutions and well within the law.
It is the president’s lawful right to take executive action to set priorities on immigration enforcement. President Obama is enforcing existing laws passed by Congress, using discretion granted to him by Congress. President Obama’s deferred action initiatives are practical, legal, and in line with actions taken by other presidents from both parties.
Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action to shape immigration priorities over the last 50 years, including presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Most Americans would agree that a father or mother of a U.S. citizen or a young person who came to this country as a child are not priorities for deportation, which is what DAPA and expanded DACA establish.
This case is about all of us.
Ensuring full economic participation and contribution of millions of American families will create jobs and add billions to our tax coffers.
A ruling against DAPA and expanded DACA won’t just impact immigrant families―it will impact everyone. Our communities don’t want to experience the chaos of tearing families apart or making it harder for some folks to work and support a family. Inclusion and participation make our communities strong. Targeting parents of American citizens for deportation only weakens them.
Based on recommendations from the DAPA/DACA+ Communications Workgroup Messaging Guide.
Background on United States v. Texas
On November 20, 2014, President Obama issued a series of executive actions that clarified immigration priorities. These executive actions expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and initiated the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA). These initiatives allowed qualified individuals to come forward and request a grant of deferred action on deportation, de-prioritizing their deportations. These programs also granted recipients with temporary work authorization.
Shortly after Obama’s announcement of these executive actions, Texas and several other states challenged the actions. The judge in the Texas lawsuit, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Texas and the other plaintiffs. Judge Hanen held that Texas had standing because DAPA and the expanded DACA would require Texas to issue more state driver’s licenses, and thus presented a sufficient legal injury on the state of Texas. The court also held that the federal government did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because of the preliminary injunction, millions of qualified immigrants are currently unable to seek relief under the expanded DACA and DAPA programs.
The United States government challenged the ruling and requested that the preliminary injunction be lifted pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Hanen’s holding, and the programs are still inactive pursuant to the preliminary injunction.1
The Supreme Court is now reviewing the challenge to the President’s executive actions. The outcome of this case will impact millions of immigrants. This case will also likely impact the discourse around immigration and may be an opportunity for political candidates to further articulate their positions on immigration.
1. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d. 733 (5th Cir. 2015).
The U.S.-‐Mexico border and the communities surrounding it represent many things: billions of dollars in trade, shared histories and cultures between the countries, and home to millions of people. But these communities are also a pawn in political discourse and misguided calls to “secure the border,” all while avoiding a meaningful dialogue on reforming immigration policies and policing practices. The resulting buildup in border enforcement and policing has a profound effect on the individuals and families in the region, including those living up to 100 miles away from the actual border, and beyond. While this buildup disproportionately affects communities on our southern border with Mexico, many of Border Patrol’s misguided policies and tactics also affect the quality life for communities across our northern border with Canada. In fact, roughly two-‐thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an international border.
This memo includes guidance for telling a story about policing in border communities that will bolster public opinion for positive policies that grow and sustain communities rather than policies that disrupt and divide them.
Current Public Opinion
Although policymakers most often connect border policy to conversations about immigration, it’s important to recognize that, for the millions of residents who call border communities home, holding U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) accountable to policing best practices is also a matter of promoting public safety and community trust. With roughly 44,000 armed officers, including Border Patrol, CBP is our nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
Support for increased enforcement in border communities is based on how politicians and the media portray those communities. The story that generates people’s concerns and bolsters support for enforcement is one of a chaotic border with little order, dangerous people, and drug and gang activities. That is not, however, the border region that most people living there would recognize. In fact, we know that most border residents feel safe in their communities, and that those communities are, in fact, among the safest in the country. 1 2
Misperceptions of border communities—and connecting their issues only to the larger debate about immigration—serve to fuel a dominant narrative that we must “secure the border.” As a result, we see a lack of support for commonsense policies at the border as current public opinion reflects concerns about the state of the border and translates to support for increased enforcement and policing.
We need to change the underlying story about border communities and policing in order to influence public opinion and change policy. Immigration advocates and others talking about border policies must move away from “border security first” messaging. We have to replace this failed messaging with an emphasis on economic opportunity, public safety, human rights, and community trust. Doing so will build opportunity for both immigration policy reform and policing reforms in border communities that put an end to military-‐style and discriminatory policing that offends American values of equality and justice. Below are three tips to consider when telling a new story.
1. Control the Context: Community vs. Chaos, People vs. Political Rhetoric
Telling stories about particular Border Patrol abuses and human rights violations is not sufficient to change the overarching story about the border region. As storytellers, it’s key to shape the entire narrative, centering it on stories about communities and people. That way, audiences have a picture in their heads of a community similar to their own, with similar concerns, challenges, and opportunities. It’s through this lens that they can better understand why excessive policing is a problem and why a militarized force is undesirable.
Sample Language
The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it. It is a region where responsible investment can be prosperous for the entire nation.
The border is more than a line. Millions of people live in border communities and many more know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible buildup of border enforcement.
Focus on Goals, Values, and People
Research completed by a coalition of immigrant rights and border region groups in 2013 recommends relying on two main themes while telling this story: goals and people. Our goals should be to maintain the safety of our communities while upholding our values. And we should consistently insert people into the story to remind audiences that we are talking about communities, not barren desert or battle zones, as some of the rhetoric would suggest.
Goals: Values + Safety
We want immigration laws and law enforcement to uphold the American values of justice and fairness for all, while ensuring public safety. The current system is ineffective and it violates our values—it is unfair and inhumane.
People: Families, Workers, Children, Community Members
People sacrifice so much coming to America to make a better life, sometimes to escape desperate poverty and violence. Many are families with children. They work hard, pay taxes, and volunteer in their communities. They love America and want to contribute to our country.3
Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands. When Border Patrol agents racially profile and detain community residents who are commuting to work and school at checkpoints located up to 100 miles away from the international border, their biased policing offends American values of equality and justice and hurts public safety by creating mistrust.
Additional Sample Language
Throughout the Southwest border region, there are urban and rural communities with deep roots and a long history of diversity, economic vibrancy, and cooperation. Border communities, like communities throughout the country, are entitled to human rights, due process, and policies that recognize their dignity, humanity, and the constitutional protections that this nation values.
Unfortunately, policymakers have far too often thrown border communities under the bus by pursuing policies that are ineffective and wasteful for security. These injustices, which go against equality, fairness, and law and order, are frustrating to Americans and completely avoidable. We can and should make commonsense policy changes to uphold human rights and due process in all of our communities.
We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect border communities, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade and protect human rights at the border through investment in critical infrastructure projects and greater accountability for border agents.
2. Frame the Problem: A Threat to Values
Law enforcement abuses, excessive policing, and militaristic strategies on American soil are central issues in border communities, but they are only part of the problem. The core problem to focus on in telling a new story about border communities and policing is how these tactics threaten the values we hold dear as a country, including protecting due process and human rights, respecting the integrity of communities, and spending our resources wisely.
Rights Violations
Research shows that when talking about these issues, more people are persuaded by conversations that begin by examining what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of values we want to uphold, than by those starting with a focus on the rights of certain groups or individuals, or on specific rights violations—like illegal searches and seizures.
Community Disruption
Paint a picture of checkpoints and daily routines disrupted because of misguided enforcement. Show how racial profiling affects community members, and how law enforcement’s shameful treatment of U.S. citizens and immigrants in border communities does not reflect the kind of country we want to live in.
Sample Language: Op-Ed Excerpt
Unchecked abuse and corruption within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be part of any discussion regarding the US southern border and the time has come to talk about reforming the agency. The Obama administration has the means to move us forward and should do so immediately.
Earlier this summer, the administration released a report calling for significant reforms to CBP to prevent widespread corruption and expand much-‐needed oversight. CBP has come under increased scrutiny as a nationwide debate continues around law enforcement’s relationship to communities, especially communities of color.
For years, CBP has failed to hold its officers accountable when they use excessive force and kill unarmed civilians. The agency fails to document and report racial inequities in who its officers stop and search, and fails to detect and deter counterproductive racial profiling that undermines values of fairness and equality. These excesses infringe daily on the rights and dignity of border communities and their residents, who go about their daily lives up to 100 miles away from the physical border yet experience CBP permanent checkpoints and patrols in their neighborhoods. For example, a recent report based on more than 50 complaints in New Mexico and Texas discovered abuses such as racial profiling, unjustified searches and detentions, physical and verbal abuse, intimidation, and interfering with emergency medical treatment. Ninety percent of people reporting these abuses were U.S citizens and 81 percent were Latino.
These incidents are not isolated. An investigation by Politico Magazine found that “between 2005 and 2012, nearly one CBP officer was arrested for misconduct every single day;” that CBP rapidly recruited agents without proper vetting or supervision, making systemic misconduct highly likely; and that, by 2014, the number one criminal priority of the FBI’s McAllen, Texas office was investigating Border Patrol agents.
A review of over 800 complaints provided by CBP’s Office of Internal Affairs reveals that CBP failed to hold officers accountable in 97 percent of the cases in which Internal Affairs completed an investigation. Almost 80 percent of the total complaints are based on physical abuse or excessive force. The rest are based on abuses including misconduct, mistreatment, racial profiling, improper searches, inappropriate touching during strip searches, or sexual abuse. In May, the former Chief of Internal Affairs, James Tomsheck, came forth as a whistleblower, saying that he witnessed a “spike” of more than 35 sexual misconduct cases between 2012 and 2014 and an agency culture that ignored and swept away corruption. A lawsuit brought by mothers and children seeking asylum last summer alleged that CBP officers applied coercion to dissuade them from getting an attorney and asserting their legal rights, in violation of domestic and international law.
Unacceptable Tactics: Racial Profiling
Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.
To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.
Define the term racial profiling and fully explain that it is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.
Too often, law enforcement, including Border Patrol, use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent, instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety. Border Patrol—part of our nation’s largest police force—should stop claiming to play by different rules than those expected of local police and hold its agents accountable to end this ineffective, harmful practice.
Offer multiple real-‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide multiple examples that include “unexpected” people of color—e.g., business people, faith leaders, honor students—who’ve been wrongly stopped.
Wrong Priorities: Misguided Spending
Current border policies and spending violate our values. We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending toward drones, weapons, and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
Sample language
For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitated protections to civil liberties.
Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-‐of-‐entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving Border Patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need to hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
3. Redirect: Talk Choices and Alternative Solutions
Remind audiences of the goals for any policing policy: what does any community want and need from law enforcement? Safety, respect, transparency, and accountability.
When people are detained or profiled, we want to make sure they are treated fairly and that law enforcement respects rights like due process, equality before the law, and access to courts and lawyers—bedrock American legal values.
Keep Solutions Front and Center
Audiences need ideas about what does work and they don’t respond well to attacks on bad policies alone. The public does not respond well if they believe a speaker is only suggesting that existing laws not be enforced and conversations without positive solutions can quickly turn to support for enforcement measures.
Instead, focus on and give context to everyday border residents—college students, mothers and fathers, or business owners—who feel the effects of biased and military-‐ style policing by Border Patrol and are relatable to your audience. Americans understand that policing based on evidence versus bias is not only more effective, but also upholds our values of fairness and equality. Many communities nationwide also relate to concerns of military-‐style policing that emphasize using force over prioritizing de-escalation and protecting the paramount value of human life. When we contextualize Border Patrol abuses as offending our values and hurting everyday border residents, we help our audience broaden their lens and understand more fully who is affected by irresponsible policing practices.
Clearly State Who Should Do What
We need to assign responsibility when talking solutions, making sure we are clear about what we are asking of different entities.
Sample Language
The White House should direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prohibit the use of racial profiling. CBP should document racial and other inequities in who officers stop, question, and search and publicly share that data. It should also train its officers on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, on prohibitions against racial profiling, and on implicit bias.
CBP should scale back military-‐type tactics and equip its officers who interact with the public with body-‐worn cameras paired with privacy protections. CBP should also reduce its zone of operations from 100 to 25 miles from the actual border, and determine in which areas an even shorter distance is reasonable.
DHS should establish an independent Border Oversight Task Force that includes border communities and has subpoena power over government officials so it can investigate and hold accountable abusive officers. It should also mandate greater oversight in order to end inhumane detention conditions; physical, sexual, or verbal abuse; and inadequate access to medical care. These are just the first steps of many that should be taken.
1. Border Network for Human Rights, Polling Report
Usher’s new song and interactive video experience, “Chains,” are powerful statements on racial injustice and police violence. Together, they offer an important platform and news hook to build support and push for change. To maximize the impact of these compelling artistic works, this memo suggests ways of talking about the works’ themes, which can inspire supporters, persuade skeptical audiences, and counter opponents.
Click the image to watch “Chains” on Tidal
Sample Messages
We recommend framing messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. For example:
“Usher’s new song and video are a powerful call for equal justice and police reform that echoes the hopes and aspirations of millions of people around the country. We need to work together to answer that call.”
Value:
“Our justice system is supposed to keep all communities safe and treat all people fairly—to give everyone equal justice.”
Problem:
“But there are too many cities and towns across the country where that’s just not the reality. In too many places, police officers are carrying dangerous stereotypes, violent tactics and, sometimes, tanks and military weapons. That’s bad for everyone, and for our nation.”
Solution:
“The good news is that there’s a lot our country can do to protect equal justice and safety for everyone. We have to challenge the stereotypes that we all carry with us, sometimes without even realizing it. This is especially true when police hold the power to determine the freedom, life, and death of so many black Americans.
“What’s making a difference when it comes to police bias and violence is better training, better information, real accountability for police abuse, and working to revitalize and support communities instead of just policing them. Young people, especially, have to be part of the conversation and part of the solution. Where that happens, it saves lives and builds stronger communities.”
Action:
“Contact your police department to make sure they are using proper training, accountability, and community policing.” OR “Sign the ColorofChange.org petition to create a federal database of police killings: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/policeforcedatabase/ ”
Additional Messages
The problem is widespread across our country. In too many places, police are more likely to stop, search, and detain people of color than white people in the exact same circumstances. They are more likely to use excessive force and to shoot and kill unnecessarily, yet they are far less likely to be held accountable for their actions.
We all need equal justice and freedom from police violence. That means both universal protections and addressing the particular types of discrimination and violence facing men and women of color, transgender people, immigrants, and other communities.
We know how to fix this. Experts and experience around the country point to concrete policies that can serve and protect all people and communities.
Racial profiling harms all Americans. It violates the American value of equal justice that we all depend on. It disrespects and discriminates against millions of young people and others around the country. It threatens public safety and can ruin people’s lives. It’s time to end racial profiling and focus law enforcement on evidence and public safety.
We need effective community policing that upholds equal justice and protects public safety. Police departments need training, rules, and oversight to avoid racial stereotyping. Congress must pass the End Racial Profiling Act to ensure fair and effective law enforcement that serves all Americans.
Sample Tweet: “New @Usher song #CHAINS a call to end police violence and discrimination. Take action by… http://chains.tidal.com/”
Sample Tweet: “Look in the eyes of victims of racial injustice and hear #CHAINS by @Usher @Nas @BibiBourelly_ #DontLookAway http://chains.tidal.com”
Suggested Answers to Frequent Questions about Usher’s Song “Chains”
Q: The song includes the refrain “light it on fire.” Isn’t that likely to incite violence of the kind we’ve seen in cities around the country?
A: “Light it on fire” is a call to shine a light on what’s happening and propel our leaders to take action. It’s the torch being passed to a new generation of young activists who are calling for peace and justice. The refrain “light it on fire” embraces all of those ideas.
Q: #BlackLivesMatter activists have criticized people like Martin O’Malley for using the phrase “All Lives Matter.” Do you think “All Lives Matter” is a racist term, or do you embrace it?
A: This is a human rights issue. Because everyone’s life is precious and because it’s black lives that are most at risk of police abuse and violence, we have to say loudly and proudly that Black Lives Matter.
Q: Some commentators have pointed out that far more black people are murdered every year by other black people than by police officers. Why don’t the song and video focus on that?
A: “Chains” talks about many types of violence and injustice. But when the police shoot and kill based on race and stereotypes, there’s an urgent need to address those actions directly.
Q: The song talks about shooting in church. Is that a reference to the Charleston church shooting?
A: Unfortunately, we’ve seen shootings in churches, in parks, on college campuses, and lots of other places. The shooting in Charleston was an especially terrible event, because it was motivated by racial hatred. The bottom line is that we have to make guns less available to people who want to hurt others. We have to get to know each other better across race, gender, and sexual identity, so that that violent impulse starts to fade.
Q: The song says “we’re still in chains” and “try to put me in chains.” Do you feel that black people are still enslaved in the United States? Have we made progress?
A: There has been progress since slavery and Jim Crow, but we still have a long way to go. Discrimination and stereotypes are still holding our country back. They deny people of color the opportunity for equal justice and access to quality education, housing, and well-paying jobs.
Selected Facts on Discrimination, Police Violence, and Equal Opportunity
The following facts and data can be used to support comments about the issues discussed in Chains:
African Americans killed by the police are twice as likely to be unarmed than are whites. The Guardian found “that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.”1
African Americans make up only 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of unlawful drug users, but are 37% of the people arrested for drug-related offenses in America.2
The job’s not done, but we’re seeing an important turnaround on discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices in New York City—as a result of protest, lawsuits, and action by the mayor and police commissioner. In 2013, police stopped New Yorkers 191,558 times. People of color bore the brunt of those stops: 56% were black, 29% were Latino, and 11% were white. So far this year, the stop-and-frisk numbers are way down (only 13,604 stops by the end of summer 2015), but black folks were still disproportionately stopped (56% of stops but just 25% of the NYC population.3; Alongside those changes, major crimes in New York City are near record lows.4;
The Los Angeles Police Department has made some important progress from the bad old days of the 1980s and ‘90s. There’s more to be done, but a positive example is a special LAPD unit that works with mentally ill folks in crisis to provide help and treatment instead of arrest or deadly force.5
The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that African Americans receive 10% longer sentences than white people through the federal system for the same crimes. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the Commission’s report, sentences of black men were 19.5% longer than those for similarly situated white men.6;
Communication Themes:
Lead with Values: Lift up the values and vision that motivate the song, video, and campaign – a society that keeps all communities safe and upholds equal justice and opportunity for all; commonsense approaches that respect the dignity and voice of all people and communities.
Talk about Problems with the System:Underline the systemic problems, not just individual injustices – a system infected with racial bias and stereotypes that turns to force and violence as a first resort instead of a last resort and, too often, lacks compassion or common sense.
Highlight Solutions: Point to the concrete solutions – policies as well as individual behavior change – described by the short film and by activists around the country. Training, monitoring, and accountability for police officers, for example, should go hand in hand with questioning our own biases and connecting across lines of difference.
Drive Audiences to Action: Always tell audiences what they can do to help solve the problem – joining an online campaign, contacting an elected official, donating money for change, or getting the word out through social media.
Additional Communication Resources
Additional communications tools, research, and examples include:
When drafting responses to the President’s announcement today, please keep in mind the particular needs of border communities, whose voices are often ignored and rights trampled in attempts to “secure the border.” You can help your border allies by considering the following five tips. This advice was developed with input from the ACLU of New Mexico, Alliance San Diego, American Friends Service Committee US/Mexico Border Program, Border Network for Human Rights, Colibri Center for Human Rights, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.
Core Message:President Obama’s announcement provides much-needed relief to millions of people and is a real victory for the country. However, there are still concerns. For one thing, today’s announcement continues and reinforces some misguided policies that affect communities in the border region. The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us.
1. Humanize the discussion. Consider terms like “border communities,” “border region,” and “borderlands.”
The border is more than a line, and referring simply to “the border” suggests we’re only talking about a fence and how to protect it.
Focus on the people, culture, and history of border communities and stress that those communities suffer when misguided policies cause human rights abuses and drain resources better spent on more productive uses.
Naming specific communities – San Diego, El Paso, Tucson – can help people visualize the communities affected by irresponsible border policies and can help to counter the people-less desert scenery sometimes conjured up by “border.”
Sample language: The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse – home to millions of people from San Diego to Brownsville. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it.
Sample language: Millions of people live in the border region or many people know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible build up of border enforcement
2. Stress that communities need to have a say in decisions that affect them.
Border communities’ voices have been drowned out or ignored in political debates around immigration. Underscore that any policy must be responsive to the expressed needs of border residents.
Sample language: We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect the border region, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade at the border and invest in critical infrastructure projects.
Sample language: Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands.
3. Talk about how current border policies and spending result in violations of our values.
We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending towards drones, weapons and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
In describing the all-too-frequent tragedies that occur, balance those stories with specific policy solutions that will help to prevent them.
Stress that Border Patrol must be held accountable. We need policies that ensure oversight, training and equipment like body-worn cameras that will help ensure the protection of human rights.
Sample language: For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitate protections to civil liberties.
Sample Language: Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-of-entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving border patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
4. Repeating myths isn’t helpful, even when attempting to discredit them.
There have been many outrageous and false stories about the border in the media, many promoted by members of Congress and others in power. It’s important to promote truthful stories about border communities instead of providing further publicity to false reports about terrorists, drug cartels and the like.
5. Don’t rely on “border security” as an attempt to bridge partisan divides.
Suggesting that helping 11 million people should come at the expense of border communities in an attempt to garner more conservative support is not helpful to the movement, and actively harmful to the millions of people who live in border communities. We can advocate for a pathway to citizenship without reinforcing the myth that the border is not secure.
Talk about the values that should guide our criminal justice system. We want to make sure that people receive equal treatment, that policies keep our communities safe, and that our laws follow common sense while also upholding our values.
Outline how current policies are failing us. Be specific in pointing out which policies need to change and who needs to change them. Vague criticisms of the “system” can make the problems with it seem insurmountable.
Avoid myth busting. Repeating untruths, even in order to refute them, only serves to bolster their staying power in audiences’ minds. Instead, focus on the truth.
Put forward an affirmative solution. Don’t just say what we shouldn’t be doing, give audiences ideas about what will prevent future tragedies.
Acknowledge the need for people to be held accountable when they have made mistakes. While many people are caught up unfairly in the criminal justice system, we need to acknowledge that there still has to be a fair and reasonable plan for those who have made mistakes, or even committed serious crimes, to move forward.
Sample Language
Value: We all make mistakes. But most Americans believe that people deserve a second chance, and that most mistakes shouldn’t be allowed to ruin our lives, and the lives of everyone around us.
Problem: But our criminal justice system does ruin the lives of many immigrants who come into contact it. Even if you’ve lived here for years, you can be deported if you’ve been accused of a low-level offense like shoplifting. Many immigrants in the system don’t get access to lawyers, and thousands are detained for indefinite amounts of time with no hearing. There’s no question that we all should be held accountable for our actions, but removal from the country or indefinite detention is a clear example of the punishment simply not fitting the crime.
Solution: We need to re-examine how our justice system treats everyone here, and align that with the values we hold dear. We need a fair system that makes sure we don’t punish people without a hearing or access to lawyers. Those rights are central to our values.
Action: We need to fix our flawed criminal justice system.
Talking about Immigrants Convicted of Serious Offenses
Value: Our policies should reflect our core values: equality, fairness, and accountability. Aligning our policies to those values is crucial if they are to survive and prosper.
Problem: But our criminal justice policies currently don’t reflect those values. Our laws treat immigrants who have been convicted of any crime very differently than others here, with an entirely different set of laws and a wholly different level of respect for rights. That distorts our notions of fairness and equal treatment. People certainly need to be held accountable for their actions, there’s no question about that. But having two sets of laws creates confusion, breeds unfairness, and isn’t in line with our values.
Solution: We need to re-examine our laws and how we treat immigrants in our justice system, and align them with the values we hold dear.
Adopted in 1868 and part of the “Reconstruction Amendments,” section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni- ties of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Several debates—including discussions at the time of the clause’s writing and adoption, and the subsequent 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case—have ended with the U.S. upholding citizenship rights of U.S.-born children of unlawfully present immigrants. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes U.S.-born children of diplomats of foreign countries and children of hostile invaders.
Public Opinion
In 2010, polling revealed that the public was split on ending or preserving citizenship based on birth in the U.S. for children of undocumented immigrants, but generally opposed to amending the Constitution to eliminate that practice.
Few Americans are familiar with the text or history of the 14th Amendment.
Ideas for Talking About the 14th Amendment: Key Values and Themes
This is about all of us and protecting our rights. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens.
These proposals are unworkable and divisive. They would place huge burdens on American citizens and create a giant new bureaucracy.
The real solution is commonsense change to our immigration policies, something the vast majority of Americans support.
Note: The phrase “American citizenship clause” is likely more persuadable than the term “birthright citizenship,” which may put off some persuadable audiences because it could connote an immediate demand for rights by people who they perceive to be lawbreakers. Our recommendation is to describe the constitutional provision as the “American citizen- ship clause,” which “guarantees that kids who are born in America are American citizens” rather than repeating the phrase “birthright citizenship.”
Additional Principles
Lead with values. This is a debate about what our country stands for and what it means to be an American. Facts are important, but they should be communicated within a values frame. Here, the relevant values relate to our constitutional freedoms and protections and to the moral and practical instability that eroding them would cause.
Remind audiences that this is about all of us. Frame the debate in terms of the 14th Amendment’s importance to all of us and our nation as a whole, not just in terms of immi- grants specifically. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens of the United States of America.
Use the pro-immigrant “Core Narrative” themes developed and used by leaders and groups around the country: a commonsense approach, upholding our nation’s values, and moving forward together. “Commonsense approach” appeals to Americans’ desire for pragmatic and effective approaches, and their recognition that rash anti-immigrant proposals are unrealistic. “Upholding our nation’s values” reconnects the immigration discussion to the kind of country we aspire to be. And “moving forward together” highlights the ways in which immigrants are already a part of us as a nation and add value to our economy and culture.
Understand the gender dynamics of this conversation. Immigrant women are often invisible in public discourse about immigration policy. Discussions of the 14th Amendment are inherently about women and their decisions, but do not center on women as whole people. In the same way that the term “anchor babies” is deeply problematic in its suggestion that the natural process of creating a family is being used as a legal scheme to gain citizenship, the erasure of women from the conversation is problematic as they become merely vessels in this scheme, and not fully-formed humans. To counter this problem, highlight how, and provide examples of, women are leaders and contributors in a range of contexts and environments: family, work, community, business. It’s important to populate the discourse with these stories while also taking on conversations about the 14th Amendment.
Remember that most Americans are unfamiliar with the content or history of the 14th Amendment. We should not assume specific knowledge about the amendment on the part of our audience, but can help shape their understanding of the provision and its importance.
Don’t waste time “myth busting,” which research shows tends to reinforce the idea you’re trying to combat. For example, don’t get mired in the debate over whether immigrants come here to have children—state the facts, then pivot and return to your affirmative point.
Sample Talking Points
“It’s a core constitutional protection that if my kids are born here, they are Americans. Destroy- ing that principle would be a dangerous mistake that would threaten freedom for all of us.”
“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was and is crucial to making us one nation, indivisi- ble. It’s an important part of our history, and vital to our future.”
“We can’t undermine who we are as a country and as a people for short-term political purposes. Instead of tampering with our Constitution, let’s move forward with commonsense immigration reform that’s languishing in Congress.”
“In addition to being wrong for America, this is not a realistic proposal. If passed, it would visit unimaginable difficulty on all 300 million of us who are American citizens. Today, when your kids are born here, you know, and everyone knows, that they are American citizens. But what if when your child was born you had to go through an application process, prove to federal, state, and local bureaucracy that you are a citizen, be entered in a database that is subject to error and delay? It would be expensive, burdensome, slow, inaccurate, and totally unacceptable to the American people.”
“If these political operatives have their way, your birth certificate will no longer be proof that you are an American. And your kids will have to prove their grandparents’ citizenship and your citizenship just to prove their own citizenship, all through some new bureaucracy that will have to be set up. That’s not the kind of country we are, and it’s not what Americans want.”
When drafting responses to the President’s announcement today, please keep in mind the particular needs of border communities, whose voices are often ignored and rights trampled in attempts to “secure the border.” You can help your border allies by considering the following five tips. This advice was developed with input from the ACLU of New Mexico, Alliance San Diego, American Friends Service Committee US/Mexico Border Program, Border Network for Human Rights, Colibri Center for Human Rights, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.
Core Message:President Obama’s announcement provides much-needed relief to millions of people and is a real victory for the country. However, there are still concerns. For one thing, today’s announcement continues and reinforces some misguided policies that affect communities in the border region. The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us.
1. Humanize the discussion. Consider terms like “border communities,” “border region,” and “borderlands.”
The border is more than a line, and referring simply to “the border” suggests we’re only talking about a fence and how to protect it.
Focus on the people, culture, and history of border communities and stress that those communities suffer when misguided policies cause human rights abuses and drain resources better spent on more productive uses.
Naming specific communities – San Diego, El Paso, Tucson – can help people visualize the communities affected by irresponsible border policies and can help to counter the people-less desert scenery sometimes conjured up by “border.”
Sample language: The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse – home to millions of people from San Diego to Brownsville. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it.
Sample language: Millions of people live in the border region or many people know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible build up of border enforcement
2. Stress that communities need to have a say in decisions that affect them.
Border communities’ voices have been drowned out or ignored in political debates around immigration. Underscore that any policy must be responsive to the expressed needs of border residents.
Sample language: We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect the border region, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade at the border and invest in critical infrastructure projects.
Sample language: Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands.
3. Talk about how current border policies and spending result in violations of our values.
We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending towards drones, weapons and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
In describing the all-too-frequent tragedies that occur, balance those stories with specific policy solutions that will help to prevent them.
Stress that Border Patrol must be held accountable. We need policies that ensure oversight, training and equipment like body-worn cameras that will help ensure the protection of human rights.
Sample language: For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitate protections to civil liberties.
Sample Language: Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-of-entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving border patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
4. Repeating myths isn’t helpful, even when attempting to discredit them.
There have been many outrageous and false stories about the border in the media, many promoted by members of Congress and others in power. It’s important to promote truthful stories about border communities instead of providing further publicity to false reports about terrorists, drug cartels and the like.
5. Don’t rely on “border security” as an attempt to bridge partisan divides.
Suggesting that helping 11 million people should come at the expense of border communities in an attempt to garner more conservative support is not helpful to the movement, and actively harmful to the millions of people who live in border communities. We can advocate for a pathway to citizenship without reinforcing the myth that the border is not secure.
Many Americans are frustrated with our immigration policies. But research and experience show that it’s not enough to focus only on the problems with our current approach. We also need to paint a picture of what the country would look like with workable, commonsense policies in place. This document discusses policies regarding unaccompanied child migrants and children coming with their families, and solutions so that we treat them in a manner consistent with human rights and due process.
Topline Message:
Our communities should act with care and compassion toward unaccompanied child migrants who have increasingly arrived at the border after fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries, and are attempting to reunify with their families. Unfortunately, our government has responded to this serious refugee situation by substantially increasing family detention and putting children on a fast-track deportation process without legal representation. This is a grave injustice and does not reflect our national values. Instead, we should implement policies that preserve children’s domestic and international human rights protections, particularly when they are in detention; provide them with legal representation; improve community support by providing case management services to all children upon reunification; and address the driving factors that push children that make a perilous journey.
Solutions
Renew Our Commitment to International Human Rights Norms
What the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Should Do:
Ensure that every accompanied and unaccompanied child from contiguous countries such as Mexico is screened by licensed child welfare professionals to ensure appropriate care while in detention and adequate screening for immigration relief. Refrain from interviewing children from non-contiguous countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras who will be screened by licensed child welfare professionals in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Current screening practices should also be improved so that child survivors of trafficking and persecution are effectively identified, referred for appropriate services, and when appropriate agents assist with trafficking certification.
Clarify DHS standards for prosecutorial discretion to recognize that children are eligible for a favorable exercise of that discretion, especially when deportation is against the child’s best interests. Prosecutorial discretion for all children should trump a child’s categorization as an enforcement priority if they have recently crossed the border.
End the use of family detention and utilize a range of alternatives, including placing families in community-based case management services or licensed child welfare programs that support the least restrictive form of custody, safety, and access to legal services.
Ensure that children and other people in vulnerable situations are not exploited or abused in short-term or long-term custody. This includes creating greater oversight and accountability to prevent shackling, handcuffing, inhumane detention conditions, inadequate access to medical care, and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by implementing public, enforceable standards for all DHS detention facilities. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should implement an access policy for civil society to allow for regular oversight and monitoring of its facilities. DHS should place child welfare professionals to oversee the care and custody of all children in CBP custody.
What Department of Justice Should Do:
Exempt children from the expedited removal process and ensure that children can consult with legal services before accepting voluntary return.
What Congress Should Do:
Require that the “best interests of the child” be “a primary consideration” in all procedures, actions, and decisions made by a federal agency or court re: unaccompanied children and principal child applicants.
In asylum cases, base the definition of “membership in a particular social group” on the immutable characteristics test first used in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).
Ensure that Child Migrants Receive Adequate Representation
What Congress Should Do:
Mandate the appointment of legal counsel for all children in removal proceedings, including a mix of private pro bono representation and direct representation by appointed lawyers.
Establish a national legal service program to provide children with information about their legal rights and conduct individual legal assessments.
Permit immigration judges the discretion to appoint an independent child advocate when necessary.
Encourage Safe and Legal Migration
What the Administration Should Do:
Allow parents who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to apply for derivative TPS for their children.
Expedite applications under the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program.
Broaden access to the CAM Program by allowing parents without legal status to sponsor children and permitting children with viable refugee claims who do not have a parent in the United States to apply.
Use executive authority to permit a larger number of unaccompanied children into the United States as refugees and expand the use of humanitarian parole to include children fleeing harm and/or reuniting with family.
End support of interdiction policies that deny children the opportunity to seek protection.
Address the Driving Factors for Migration
What the Administration and Congress Should Do:
Invest in community-based and comprehensive youth violence prevention strategies.
Make assistance to police and military conditional on compliance with basic human rights standards, particularly in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, and use this leverage to reduce corruption and dissuade “mano dura” policies (zero-tolerance criminal law policies that violate human rights).
Strengthen the regional systems of protection for children and migrants in Central America and Mexico, particularly in child welfare, asylum, humanitarian visa, and anti-trafficking.
End economic agreements and policies that displace people and fail to uphold human and labor rights.
Sign, adopt, and ratify the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Their Families and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Talking Points
We should act with care and compassion toward children fleeing persecution and harm.
How we treat child migrants should reflect our national values of due process and human rights.
The research cited in this document is current as of June 2015.
Understanding the Roots of Attitudes on Inequality Research
Opportunity is a deeply held value at the core of the American ethos. The belief that our nation can and should be a place where everyone has a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential is widely shared. But many believe the ideal of opportunity is in jeopardy and are willing to take steps to defend it.
In 2014, The Opportunity Agenda commissioned a groundbreaking nationwide survey to examine what the U.S. public thinks about opportunity in America and to measure public support for policies that expand opportunity across a range of issues, including jobs, education, criminal justice reform, immigration, and housing. Additionally, the research sought to gain a deeper understanding of the multiple factors that influence attitudes on inequality, contribute to an individual’s worldview, and predict people’s willingness to take action on issues they care about. Together, the survey’s findings offer critical insights for social justice leaders and organizations seeking to move hearts, minds, and policy.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
