Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Tag: immigration

Talking About Race and The First Step Act

The First Step Act, which recently passed the Senate with wide bipartisan support, can and should represent change in how our nation thinks, talks, and acts on criminal justice issues. While The First Step Act contains modest positive reforms that are welcomed, it is important to also address the act’s limitations. In particular, the act does not directly address issues of racial bias within the criminal justice system. Because it does not openly address the racial bias in the system, there is a risk that it will exacerbate existing racial disparities. This document provides advice for talking about the limitations of The First Step Act as they pertain to race.

1. Lead with Values, such as Equal Justice, Dignity, and Fairness.

Research and experience show that it is more effective to lead with shared values in advocating for criminal justice reform than policy details, statistics, or political rhetoric. When talking about The First Step Act and race, begin by uplifting the values of Equal Justice, Dignity, and Fairness. Highlight how positive criminal justice reform will uphold our society’s commitment to Equal Justice for people of all races. The First Step Act should aim to ensure that the criminal justice system treats individuals with the dignity and fairness we all deserve. Discuss how everyone should be able to benefit from the provisions of the act, including the many people who are currently incarcerated because of racially discriminatory policies.

2. Focus on Obstacles rather than Outcomes.

Experience shows that most criminal justice problems cannot be truly fixed without addressing questions of race. However, when talking about race, discussing racially disparate outcomes without a greater discussion of the obstacles or problems that lead to those outcomes may cause the listener to respond from an individualistic frame. This makes the listener more likely to blame the individuals adversely affected by the system instead of motivating them to address a problem with the system
itself.

Rather than leading with evidence of unequal outcomes alone, we recommend focusing on the obstacles people of color frequently face that lead to harsh and unequal treatment by the criminal justice system and provide concrete examples of these barriers. Discuss the structural and systemic barriers that have led to racial profiling, racial discrimination in how prosecutors choose whether to charge an individual with a crime, and racially discriminatory sentencing outcomes. These are systemic and structural issues that stem from implicit bias, a history of harshly policing communities of color, and widespread use of policies that do not adequately address either of these issues. Explain the need for additional legislation that openly aims to address racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, thereby better promoting equal justice.

3. Discuss Solutions, Not Just the Problems.

When discussing the various problems with The First Step Act, provide solutions that demonstrate the concrete ways Congress should build upon and fix the act.

A. Electronic Monitoring

The act relies heavily on relatively new and substantially unregulated electronic monitoring. This newly advanced, but little studied, method of supervised release tracks individuals’ daily movements and often requires that they ask for permission from a judge or probation officer to leave home. This type of intrusive monitoring perpetuates comic disparities in the system by making it difficult for individuals to maintain employment and requiring individuals to bear the costs of maintaining the monitoring system. Currently there is little regulation controlling the use of the electronic monitoring as a form of supervised release. The use of this technology on people of color creates an additional law enforcement intrusion into the very communities that are already over-policed because of racially biased policies, and may result in a new form of incarceration that will expand in time.

Consider highlighting the following solutions when discussing electronic surveillance:

  • Supervised release programs should avoid invasive monitoring techniques that are overly restrictive and replicate the conditions of incarceration.
  • Electronic shackles should only be used—if at all—once significant constitutional safe-guards and procedures for monitoring racial bias in implementation are put in place to protect against the misuse of this technology.
  • People should never have to pay for electronic monitoring. Electronic surveillance needs more flexibility to allow people to maintain employment and costs of maintaining the system should never be placed on the individual.

B. Racially-Biased Risk Assessment Tools

The act supports the use of risk-assessment tools that rely upon “evidence-based” algorithms to predict the likelihood an individual will commit crimes in the future. While the use of these tools originally aimed to eliminate the bias of judges and prosecutors, research has shown that the algorithms themselves may be tainted by the implicit bias of the creator, which in turn may perpetuate those biases. Thus, the algorithms often unintentionally give higher risk scores to people of color than to otherwise similar whites.

Further, risk-assessment tools, as currently designed, fail to consider the unique circumstances and traits pertaining to an individual. The use of risk assessment tools should be used very cautiously, and the algorithms that are the basis of these tools should be transparent and adjusted with community consultation. Risk-assessment tools should facilitate release and reduce racial bias, rather than exacerbate it.

Consider highlighting the following solutions when discussing the use of risk assessment tools:

  • The data and algorithms that underlie risk assessment tools should be transparent and available for community commentary.
  • Risk assessment tools should be subject to community input and eliminated or adjusted where there is evidence of racial bias in their implementation.

C. Sentencing Carve-Outs

While the act provides meaningful incentives for individuals to earn credit to reduce their sentences by participating in programming aimed to prevent recidivism, a large number of individuals, including immigrants, will be excluded from this opportunity. Excluding individuals convicted of more serious crimes and immigrants from eligibility to participate in programming to prevent recidivism ignores the very individuals who can benefit most from such programming. Our communities may be adversely affected by this exclusion.

Consider highlighting the following solution when discussing the excluded offenses:

  • Everyone deserves access to healing and justice. The First Step Act should be improved to expand the opportunity to earn time-off credits to all individuals who are incarcerated.

D. Lack of Fairness: Retroactivity

Criminal justice reform should benefit everyone—including those currently incarcerated as a result of racially biased policies, including racially discriminatory sentences. While the act provides some much-needed sentencing reform, only one of the sentencing provisions applies retroactively. Because many people were initially incarcerated due to racially discriminatory policies, without retroactive application, the act fails to remedy past racial injustices.

Consider highlighting the following solution when discussing the lack of retroactivity:

  • It’s only fair that people who are incarcerated get access to relief and sentencing reductions provided by reform legislation. Accordingly, all of the sentencing reform provisions should be retroactive.

E. Highlight the Demand for Equal Justice.

While it is imperfect in many ways, The First Step Act is the result of the advocacy of many groups and individuals who are committed to equal justice. Moving forward, we need to acknowledge that even though the Act has passed the Senate, there is still a need for continuing systemic change, and more can and should be done. The next step is for legislators and policymakers to continue to improve upon The First Step Act by explicitly addressing the racial discrimination that exists within the system.

Five Questions to ask when Crafting Messages about Refugees in the Current Climate

In the run up to the 2018 midterm elections, a Media Matters study found that discussions of the “migrant caravan” took over the news cycle directly after Fox News covered it and the president tweeted about it.

What started out as one of Fox News’ pet issues has become a major media narrative thanks to the feedback loop between the network and President Donald Trump. CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC spent a combined 15 hours covering the migrant caravan between Monday, October 15, and Sunday, October 21. Fox News led the charge, covering the story both first and the most — for nearly eight hours. In the same week-long period, CNN covered the issue for four and a half hours, while MSNBC devoted two and a half hours to the migrant caravan.

— Media Matters

It’s moments like this when we can find ourselves caught up in playing defense – there are so many lies to contend with, and so much under attack, including vulnerable people. It can be overwhelming to think of where to start when crafting a communications response, and advocates often fall back on the obvious: refute the lies, throw out more facts, hope that the truth will prevail. But experience shows that this strategy isn’t sufficient for stories like these. We have to think more broadly about the long-term story we want to see, examine news coverage to see where we can fit pieces of that story in, and give audiences alternatives: new thinking and better solutions in how they are viewing the story.

Below are five questions to consider as we strategize how to respond to stories about the refugees while still moving forward the positive, long-term narrative that will build longer lasting support for common sense policies.

1. What kind of values would we rather see in headlines about people coming together to move toward safety and opportunity? 

Compassion, hope, and opportunity are all important values that our audiences tend to share. We should consider how we shape messages to encourage audiences to embrace these values over the themes promoted by the opposition, namely fear and nativism.

As a nation, we should respond to humanitarian situations with compassion and common sense.”

— Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum

Consistently, as Presbyterians gather at General Assemblies, they decide that we, as a church, must respond with compassion, taking great care to meet the humanitarian needs of groups on the move. In these moments, we are guided by scripture which says, ‘Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that, some have entertained angels without knowing it.’ (Hebrews 13:2, NRSV). These are our sisters and brothers with whom we share a loving God. May we be courageous enough to reach out with open arms and support others in doing the same.

— Amanda Craft, manager of advocacy with the Presbyterian Office of Immigration Issues.

We recommend a Value, Problem, Solution, Action structure when crafting messages to ensure that values are front and center in any communication:

Value: We are a compassionate country that has a commitment to honoring our humanitarian responsibilities. We have long had an orderly system for considering asylum claims that has served us well.

Problem: Divisive fear mongering, unjustified threats, and using asylum seekers to further political arguments rooted in xenophobia do not serve our country or our values well.

Solution: We should process asylum claims according to current laws and rethink our immigration policies that make it impossible for those seeking opportunity to join our workforce and society.

Action: Tell your representatives that you care about how we treat migrant and refugee families and want to see humane solutions instead of threats and bullying.

2. How can we best inject the truth into coverage of this story?

This story, as designed by Fox News, has become a vehicle for the president and others to spread lies and fear and point toward inhumane, cruel “solutions.” There has been a lot of coverage from CNN, MSNBC, and others refuting the misinformation the administration is providing.

We should use any limited space we have to promote our own story and vision instead of repeating false information, even if to counter it, as doing so often just spreads the lies further. In fact, some of the well-intentioned coverage arguing with the administration’s characterization of the migrants has likely already dug the story, and mischaracterizations, further into audience’s minds than we would want. It’s important to not feed these aspects of the story, to not repeat them, and rather to focus on the ways forward that we want audiences to see.

3. What solutions should we pivot toward?

Giving audiences an alternate vision of the world, including alternate solutions, is just as – if not more – important than only taking a stance against what the administration proposes. Without solutions, we risk exhausting audiences with what appears to be politically-motivated rhetoric among pundits who are only interested in disagreeing with each other. Assuring audiences that we know a way forward, and have concrete examples of what that looks like, can also help to reduce the appearance of chaos that our opponents are trying frighten persuadable audiences with.

WOLA, the Washington Office on Latin America, notes:

[T]his is a manageable humanitarian and logistical problem… It can and should be managed in an orderly way that treats migrants humanely, respects their rights, and follows our legal procedures, as well as the United States’ international commitments on migration.

They then provide a six-point, bulleted list of actions that the U.S. should take.

Welcoming America provides a more general call-to-action, with specific examples included on their website (see question #5):

Building a nation of neighbors starts right where you are: in your community, and there are ways you can make a difference, too. Together, let’s build bridges and demonstrate that our differing identities are assets in making our communities and nation stronger.

4. How are key audiences hearing this story? What’s the right language to use to persuade them to support our solutions? 

While we know that some audiences are hearing this story with a mixture of fear and anger, it’s important to think of how more persuadable audiences might be taking it. One consideration in how they will understand the story is how we talk about migrants and refugees themselves. It’s strategic to show the similarities these audiences have with the folks in the migrant group: a desire to work and care for their family, a pursuit of opportunity, a need for safety. Because we want to emphasize the asylum aspects of this story, it’s tempting to focus on what people are fleeing: violence and poverty. But there are a lot of other outlets doing that work, so it likely serves advocates better to remind audiences, particularly persuadable audiences, of what they might see of themselves in people looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

It’s also important to move away from repeating language designed by the other side to instill fear and anger. There is no need to repeat words like “invasion,” or even “migrant caravan,” even if to argue for better terms. Instead, we should describe the folks coming here as families, parents, workers, students, etc. who are seeking opportunity and safety.

These individuals are largely asylum seekers, families of people who are seeking safety. How we react to them says a lot about how we value them as human beings.”

— Teresa Waggener, immigration attorney for the Presbyterian Office of Immigration Issues

“They truly hope that by making this show of collectiveness, by joining this caravan, somebody’s heart will be touched and a miracle will happen.”

— Oscar Chacón, executive director of Alianza Americas

“They are pilgrims, coming to a place that once welcomed the immigrant with the lines: ‘Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”

— Rev. Katherine Rhodes Henderson, Auburn Seminary President

5. What story would we rather see in the headlines?

While it’s true that we don’t control the news cycle, keeping in mind what ideal, or at least better, coverage would look like can help to inform our responses when we find ourselves playing defense in moments like this. Welcoming America provides some good examples of positive narratives around refugees on their welcomingrefugees.org site.

Messaging Advice on The Supreme Court’s Muslim Ban Decision

On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Hawaii, allowing the Muslim Ban to stand.

In a 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, the U.S. Supreme Court stunningly ignored the foundational American principles of religious freedom and human rights. Applying the lowest level of Constitutional scrutiny while also ignoring pre-inauguration tweets and other declarations of racial and religious animus, the Court held that the Muslim Ban was within presidential authority and, instead, focused on the justification provided by the Executive Branch in the language of the Muslim Ban itself.

Recommended Messaging

What follows are The Opportunity Agenda’s messaging recommendations for discussing the case, pending a more thorough review of the multiple opinions in the case.

With this ruling, the court’s majority has closed their eyes to religious discrimination, which is profoundly harmful to the people in our families and communities, and to our nation’s values of religious freedom and basic rights. Today’s decision allows the president’s self-avowed discrimination based on religion to become a part of our nation’s migration policy. Although the Supreme Court has now spoken, it is the people who must decide the character, values, and direction of this great nation.

We must now call upon policy makers at all levels, including Congress, to return the principles of religious freedom and human rights to that policy.

As noted in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent: “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”

Narrative Themes

The values at issue in this case are religious freedom and human rights. Today’s decision undercuts the core beliefs on which this nation was founded.

When possible, communications on the case should emphasize the following themes:

     1. Our Core National Values

Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when we have done the right thing is inspiring.

We believe in religious freedom. We believe in equality of opportunity. We welcome our Muslim, immigrant, and refugee neighbors.

Values: Freedom, Justice, Dignity, Fairness, Opportunity, our Founding Principles.

    2. Our Moral Responsibility

Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights.

Values: Empathy, Compassion, Community.

   3. Pivot to Solutions: Activism and Lawmaking

Audiences of all backgrounds, particularly those serving the communities directly impacted by cases such as this one, are hungry for solutions and hope in times like these. Remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re up against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel as though their efforts matter, and that they can be both despairing of this moment in history, while at the same time remembering that our country’s core principle and history is to accommodate all kinds of people. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about working together to counter and replace bad policies. And undecided audiences need to hear the positive alternatives that are possible.

Values: Pragmatism, Common Sense, Innovation, Determination to Do The Right Thing, Our Shared Responsibility to Fix Flawed Policies, Solidarity.

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action.  Consider these examples in crafting your messages:

Example One

Value:

Our nation was founded on the idea that your religious faith and how you worship cannot be used by our government to punish or exclude you. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of our country and a fundamental constitutional right.

Problem:

In this case, President Trump blatantly violated that principle, announcing that he would ban Muslims from our country and doing so with respect to countless family members, scholars, and others seeking to visit loved ones or contribute to our society.

And the Supreme Court today allowed that discrimination, willfully ignoring President Trump’s own bigoted statements, thereby giving legitimacy to the Administration’s flawed and harmful policy.

Solution:

Congress – and policy makers at all levels – must now act to stand against this bigoted ruling, and repair this stain on our national values and constitutional legacy.

Action:

Call on policy makers at the local, state and national levels to rebuke this ruling and to do everything in their power to reassert religious freedom in our policies and discourse:

Example Two

Value: 

Our nation prides itself on its welcoming spirit. As embodied by the Statue of Liberty, these American values must be the bedrock principle by which the government operates and implements policies today.

Problem: 

However, the administration has shown over and over again that it does not believe in upholding this bedrock principle. In President Trump’s policies, executive orders, cases, and argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration has used every tool available to ensure that only certain people and religious faiths are welcome in the United States. And today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Administration’s blatantly discriminatory policy and chose to side with the Administration’s ban on Muslims from traveling to our nation.

Solution: 

America is better than this – and our country must not condone discrimination of any sort, including on the basis of religion. We must remember that even with our nation’s history of discriminatory policies, the experiment that is the American democracy can and has proven before that its purpose must be to serve its people and truly be as good as its ideals, for all who live, and aspire to live, here. Congress – and policy makers at all levels – must now act to repair this stain on our national values and constitutional legacy.

Action: 

Call on policy makers, including your member of Congress, to rebuke this decision. Urge them to bring resolutions and legislation that will correct the Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii and ensure that the American rule of law reflects the values inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. We are better than this.

Additional Material You May Find Helpful

Talking About the Muslim Ban, Trump v. Hawaii (Pre-decision)

Six Tips for Responding to Supreme Court Decisions

Partner Statements on Trump v. Hawaii

Talking About The U.S. Border: Imprisoned Children, Lost Parents, and Separated Families

Updated October 2020

The administration’s willful separation of children from their parents at the Southern U.S. border is an atrocious violation of human rights and dignity, and part of a broader pattern of cruel, biased, and destructive border and immigration policies. The horror of watching our government press criminal charges against adult asylum seekers while at the same time pulling their children from them for imprisonment in cages captured  national attention two years ago. Now the damage and trauma has been solidified for more than 500 immigrant children whose parents our government can’t locate. In this moment of national reckoning, we must acknowledge the distress and disgust we are feeling and channel this anger into action through voting, organizing, and working with immigration rights allies to make sure this never happens again.

Making sure that the narrative on immigrants is centered on the values of dignity, safety, mobility, and human rights is also crucial. Based on consultation with our partners in the border region, our assessment of the evolving media discourse, and available public opinion research, we recommend framing and discussing the administration’s actions and the alternatives in ways that lead to activation as well as persuasion. We recommend lifting up our shared values as a nation, making clear how the separation and incarceration of children is part of a broad approach and ideology that violates those values, and providing specific alternatives and actions that our audiences can take and policymakers must pursue.

The Opportunity Agenda reminds communicators to consider your audience(s) and build messages using a Value, Problem, Solution, Action (VPSA) framework. We know that doing so helps persuade people of disparate views to see past rhetoric and embrace our shared humanity.  It centers the conversation on positive change that moves us forward together. That’s especially important in this case, allowing the conversation to focus not on disagreements over policy detail or past administrations, but on action and the values we share.

State these values clearly, then move to defining the problem as a violation of those principles and pivot quickly to solutions, both short- and longer-term. Finally, give your audiences a concrete action so that they can move on their concern right away.

Below are some examples of VPSA messaging around the border and what to do about it.

Value:

This is about who we are as a country – our national heart and soul. It is also about the children themselves and ensuring their safety and security. The United States must be a compassionate nation that protects children, respects the value of family, and upholds the dignity of all people, wherever they come from.

What I saw today is simply not who, we, as a country should be. This is cruel and inhumane treatment and we cannot allow it to continue on our watch.

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places devastated by natural disasters or famine or war. We pride ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We pride ourselves on acceptance. If we are truly that country, then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children with their parents – and to stop separating parents and children in the first place.

– Former First Lady Laura Bush

Problem:

Holding children hostage for political gain is morally reprehensible and a dark atrocity that we cannot tolerate. What has been less focused on is that while this is happening, the administration is criminally prosecuting the parents of these children, who face up to 20 years in prison for seeking refuge and a better life for their families in the United States.

Separating immigrant parents and children as a supposed deterrent to immigration is a cruel and reprehensible policy. Children are not instruments of deterrence, they are children. A government that thinks any means is suitable to achieve an end cannot secure justice for anyone.

– Bishop Daniel E. Flores, Diocese of Brownsville, TX

If you think about what the Republican Party has stood for, it’s family values and protecting children, so it seems contradictory that they’re engaging in this enforcement activity of ripping kids from their families. It’s really troubling to see that an administration can be so callous. It’s beyond the pale.

– Vicki Gaubeca, Director of the ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights

The staggering inhumanity of this president’s treatment of these children belongs in the darkest chapters of our nation’s history—the ones we can never forget and must never repeat.

– Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa)

Problem:

Tearing children from families fleeing harm is part of a larger pattern by this administration of bigotry and cruelty toward people based on their skin color, religion, and national origin. It is also part and parcel of the administration’s return to flawed over-reliance on incarceration and criminalization. This assault on our values harms not just the families and children at the border, but all of us watching. It is also a stark reminder of the history of discrimination and internment based on race and ethnicity that we must rise above rather than repeat.

Zero tolerance, especially toward immigrants, isn’t just a policy proposal to this president and his allies—it is the ideology that animates the entire Trump phenomenon, and a defining characteristic of the world as they want it to be.

– Chas Danner, New York Magazine

Solution:

The government must work with lawyers and advocates to find the parents of these children immediately and reunite them.  Families belong in communities, not cages, and not separated across borders. And in addition to the range of crucial short-term fixes to the outrageous separation of children, we need long-term, transformative solutions to the bigotry, flawed immigration rules, disrespect for asylum, and misuse of incarceration that allowed this situation to happen in the first place. We must stand against the administration’s retrogressive vision for a structure of immigration enforcement and criminalization in our country. This moment has the potential to be a turning point toward a positive vision.

The government should be held accountable, absolutely. These families deserve compensation. They’re dealing with children and the parents themselves are deeply traumatized. This has a really broad-reaching impact on societies.

– Cathleen Caron,  Executive Director at Justice in Motion

We are proud to join nearly 300 organizations on this letter to Congress, calling on Members to cut funding for the agencies of ICE and CBP that endanger immigrant communities. It’s time to #DefundHate.

– National Immigration Law Center

There’s big business in borders and lock-ups. Companies like the GEO Group make money when families are torn apart. We don’t belong in cages, #WeBelongTogether in FREEDOM. We demand our government choose people over profits.

– @DreamDefenders

I call on the Trump administration to release all of these individuals immediately, to give them access to attorneys to quickly process their asylum claims, and for them to be immediately reunited with their children […] I will also continue to push to defund ICE, to completely reform the immigration detention system and end mass prosecutions by the Department of Justice, and defund any Department of Homeland Security programs that break up families.

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

Action:

This administration’s unchecked power must be challenged now. We must mobilize, call our representatives, and vote. Now is the time to bring in the persuadable skeptics who have resisted the idea that this administration is dangerously bigoted toward immigrants and people of color.

So ultimately, we have to turn the tide on Trump’s politics of fear and division — by voting […] The majority Americans, the “coalition of the decent” are disgusted by what they’re seeing on TV and in social media, but we have to put our beliefs into action.

– America’s Voice

We can stop this. Members of Congress have the power to decide which programs and agencies are funded, and how they are funded. ICE and CBP will not be able to continue these atrocities without funds. It’s time for these agencies to be held accountable. It’s time to abolish ICE and CBP. Add your name to demand Congress abolish ICE and CBP.

– United We Dream

Call your local, state and/or national representatives to let them know that you think this is a humanitarian issue. You can find your federal senators and representatives here.

– Women’s Refugee Commission

Six Tips for Responding to Supreme Court Decisions

  1. Be cautious.

    Don’t comment until you’ve seen the facts and the lead party’s statement. Remember, the first statement you make will be the most powerful. Comment to shape the conversation, not argue with the opposition about what the decision means. Consider your audience and the big picture of what those who read your statement will take away from it, and remember that if you jump in and don’t have a well-thought out point of view, that’s likely to be what your audience will remember.

  2. Focus on what the case means to our shared values.

    Consider the decision through your audience’s eyes. Most audiences are not at all familiar with – or even focused on – the outcomes of Supreme Court cases and their impressions will be shaped by headlines and topline rhetoric. It’s important to find ways to engage at that level, while providing detailed legal arguments only for audiences who want that. A great way to do this is to focus on values. Consider what the case suggests for the celebration or undermining of those values.

  3. Avoid jargon…

    In favor of plainspoken and accessible language that tells a story your audiences can digest, and that will spark action. Include stories, imagery, and metaphors that are memorable and stay with audiences longer than legal points.

  4. Try to comment on the case, not the court.

    If you don’t agree with a decision, it’s tempting to admonish the court for being out of touch. But remember that the Supreme Court is considering multiple cases impacting a range of issues across the social justice spectrum. Attacking the ideological profile of particular justices without discussing their alignment (or misalignment) of values in relationship to a decision can undercut a more favorable decision they may make on another issue. The way around this is to speak about what the case means to our shared values and national identity, and how decisions do or do not reflect those values. It may make sense to criticize the ruling, and specific justices’ opinions, but do leave room for the possibility that the court could rule more favorably on other cases. Try to refrain from comments that write off the court in its entirety.

  5. Don’t focus on what the decision isn’t.

    Discuss what it is. Explaining the legal details of what the case doesn’t mean is not as powerful as affirmatively stating what it does mean. Spending too much time telling audiences that the ruling does not outlaw abortion, for instance, only repeats the phrase and strengthens it in audiences’ minds.

  6. Pivot to solutions and action.

    While reporters covering the case may want “just the facts,” there are many opportunities to remind audiences of the solutions that the case highlights, and what they can do to make those solutions happen. Base audiences, in particular, will be fired up to do something whether in a celebratory or angry mood, so make sure to give them something concrete that they can do.

Census Data: A Fair and Accurate Count

We all deserve to live in a society that promotes dignity, supports families, and uses our can-do spirit to expand opportunity. Collecting Census data in a fair and accurate way makes it possible for us to tell a story about the kind of progress that we can and should make. At some time in our lives, we all rely on building block programs that are the foundation of our nation. Social insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and infrastructure programs like Community Development Block Grants, all receive federal dollars that are disbursed based on a fair and accurate Census count.

The impact of the Trump administration’s decision to add a question regarding citizenship status to the 2020 Census could result in whole communities not being counted, and therefore an unfair and inaccurate understanding of the communities we live in. We know that the economic security – and basic societal and cultural inclusion – of these communities could be even more at risk due to this decision. And we also know that investments in equal opportunity will be short-lived or underserved, if the question about citizenship is included, and if there are drastic cuts in a range of initiatives that rely on Census data to determine investments in safety net and other programs.

Following are a few tips for talking about the importance of Census data, achieving a fair and accurate count, and the story it tells us.

Lead with Values: Fair and accurate Census data is important, but we have to spend a little bit of time telling audiences why that is: what it really stands for and the story it really tells us. Use a values lens to do this, focusing on Opportunity, Family, Dignity, Inclusion, Pragmatism/Common Sense, and American Ingenuity. Each of these represents why the programs that rely on Census data really matter, what they protect and promote, and what they represent in terms of our American identity. And each of these value lenses speak to the inclusion of everyone in achieving a fair and accurate count — which means being intentional about how Census questions are asked and whether people are encouraged to participate in the first place.

Ask audiences what kind of society, or country, we want to be – the kind that promotes inclusion, opportunity and raises the quality of life for everyone here? Or the kind that stops progress in its tracks, cutting off those in need in favor of tax cuts to corporations and the very wealthy? Or so that political gains instead of human need gets prioritized?

Connect the Dots: Show how decision makers, investments, policy choices, and outcomes are all related.

  • Audiences’ default thinking about “the economy” tend to view it as an uncontrollable phenomenon like the weather, or a wild animal that does as it pleases. We need to frame it as the result of policy choices – which rely on Census data – by specific decision makers that can (and should) be crafted to meet the goals of opportunity for all.
  • Show how the current Administration’s proposals endanger our country’s value in inclusion and prosperity for all, and the well-being of millions of ordinary people, so that corporations and the wealthiest can move away from paying their fair share, or political gains can be made. For instance, nutrition, health care, and energy assistance programs alone keep millions from continuing to live in poverty. But absent fair and accurate Census data, these programs will not achieve what they should for the people who rely on them the most. And the recently-proposed budget takes us backward on all of these fronts. Health insurance gains –largely driven by Medicaid expansion—are particularly at risk. While the repeal of the Affordable Care Act failed for now, waivers and attempts to sabotage insurance markets are threatening to reverse the progress we’ve made.
  • Be clear that the numbers tell only part of the story. Most Americans continue to face steep obstacles to economic security and basic opportunity like a job that pays decent wages or the chance to send their kids to college. We need solutions that preserve the gains while expanding opportunity for an economy that works for all of us. And these solutions rely on a fair and accurate Census count.

Be Strategic with Language: Instead of talking about “the poor, “the undocumented” or “people in poverty,” speak at a more personal level – ‘families like mine’ or ‘you and your family’ – to move audiences’ understanding from charity for others to personal advocacy. Talking about people/families “struggling to make ends meet” also connects with strategic audiences. It also enables people to broaden the scope of who they think about when considering who is left out – or could be – if Census data is used as a tool to exclude, not include. Finally, focusing on families/people “facing” “hurdles” or “obstacles,” can highlight that the fault lies with the system, and not with the family.

Equal Opportunity Matters: In addition to overall progress and peril on poverty, highlight findings about racial, ethnic, and gender equity, which may tell a different story—or multiple stories. At the values level, this means establishing greater and more equal opportunity as among the nation’s goals. It also means that we must connect what the Census can and should do in service of equal opportunity and share economic prosperity. As with the overall numbers, identify specific policy principles that contributed to any progress (or kept things from being even worse than they are); choices that held us back; and solutions going forward. This is especially important regarding racial inequality, as people tend to misattribute differing outcomes to differing work ethic and “culture,” or purely socioeconomic class differences.

Underscore the Importance of Census Data: Highlight the importance of the Census in providing accurate, fair, unbiased information about who lives in our country. And that means everyone who lives in our country. Because this is used to determine policy outcomes that serve the health and prosperity of our nation, as well as our progress toward the goals of greater and more equal opportunity for all.

Highlight a Positive Role for Government: Remind audiences of government’s crucial role, as well as the unpredictable economic and other challenges that we all face over the course of our lifetimes. Underscore the importance of government in providing support systems for Americans facing misfortune, while expanding opportunity for all. Government-run social insurance and building block programs improve the lives for many people in the United States. Medicaid, for example, supports special education in K-12 schools and over 60% of nursing home beds nationwide. We all benefit from the roads and public transportation that enable us to get to work. All of these are dependent on an accurate and reliable census count.

Building a Message

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. You can use the themes and recommendations above to build a message around the specific policy solutions you need to highlight. For example:

Value: We need to build an economy that offers opportunity and economic security to everyone who lives here. Every family should have access to a quality education, a job that enables them to provide for their family, affordable healthcare, and a dignified retirement. That starts with a fair and accurate Census count.

Problem: Wrongheaded proposals by the current Administration and congressional leadership not only endanger the progress we’ve made but take us sharply in the wrong direction. Harmful proposals such as a citizenship question on the Census go against our values as a nation, and would pull resources away from real solutions. This proposal, and others like it, also lead to division in our culture, communities and the prospect of commonality in how equality for all is understood as a value.

Solution: Experience tells us what works to expand opportunity and build economic security for all Americans. Solutions include [Illustrative policy solutions].

Action: Join the #SavetheCensus or #HandsOff campaign and tell the President and Congress that #WeAllCount and they must help build an economy that works for all of us.

Talking About the Muslim Ban, Trump v. Hawaii

On April 25, 2018, the Supreme Court heard Trump v. Hawaii, one of the legal challenges to the Trump administration’s Muslim Ban, which had been blocked by the courts time and time again. Before the end of June, the Court will issue its decision in the case. It’s time to remind key audiences that this ban is an obvious violation of our values. We suggest a Value, Problem, Solution, Action structure when building messages about the ban; see examples below.

Values

Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to new arguments when they are framed by shared values. For recent Executive Orders, there are three sets of recurring values that we want to keep at the center of the conversation:

1. Our Core National Values

Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, dignity, fairness, our founding legal documents.

Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when we have done the right thing is inspiring.

Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, dignity, fairness, our founding legal documents.

We believe in religious freedom. We believe in equality of opportunity. We welcome our Muslim, immigrant, and refugee neighbors. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

Americans now face a choice: Do we stand up for our highest values, treating others with dignity, fairness, and respect? Or do we succumb to bigotry and fear, allowing ourselves to be divided on the basis of faith or nation of origin?

– Azadeh Shahshahani, Project South

A nation founded with the promise of religious freedom. This nation wants to ban Muslim immigrants? ‪#NoBanNoWall

– Franchesca Ramsey, YouTuber

2. Our Moral Responsibility

Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow humans and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights.

Values: Empathy, compassion, community.

Having once borne the brunt of severe discriminatory treatment, particularly in the immigration context, the Catholic Church will not sit silent while others suffer on account of their religion.

– U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Amicus brief

Today and every day, I stand proudly with my Muslim neighbors for religious freedom. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

All of us deserve to feel safe from hatred and to live and pray in peace. The Muslim Ban has no place in our society—not now, not ever.

– American Friends Service Committee

3. Our “Can Do” Spirit

Audiences are hungry for solutions in times like these. We have to remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel proud of our country’s capacity to accommodate all kinds of people, and our history of providing opportunity for those seeking it. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about working together to counter, demolish, and replace bad policies.

Values: Pragmatism, common sense, innovation, determination to do the right thing, our shared responsibility to fix flawed policies, solidarity.

The technological and scientific breakthroughs that fuel the economic engine of the country — search, cloud computing, social media, artificial intelligence, faster and faster microprocessors, the Internet of Everything, reusable spacecraft — were all made possible by the ingenuity, imagination and invention of newcomers to America, including Muslims from across the world.

– Amicus brief filed by 58 tech companies in opposition to the ban.

Amici (the schools submitting the brief) have long recognized the importance of attracting international students, faculty, staff, and scholars. International scholars and faculty share important insights about the conditions, traditions, and cultural values and practices of their home nations. Their work leads to critical advancements across all disciplines, from science and technology to arts and letters, often through cross-border collaborations that enhance teaching and research. … The benefits of international diversity in American higher education thus inure not only to colleges and universities themselves, but to the country and indeed the world.

– Amicus brief from 30 universities in opposition to ban.

Problem

Frame problems as threats to our shared values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience. But choose facts carefully. We all have a lot of evidence to support our claims. However, facts do not tend to change minds if the facts are not couched in values.

The Muslim ban, in all of its iterations, is nothing more than religious intolerance masquerading as an attempt to address (unfounded) security concerns.

– Amicus brief filed by the Muslim Justice League and other Muslim rights groups.

The Trump Administration is threatening to close our doors on Muslims, immigrants, and refugees. But as citizens of this nation, we’re laying out our welcome mats. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

Solution

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. They are the hero of the story and rescue the values at stake. In the case of these Executive Orders, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.

I think this is a problem that will need diplomatic solutions, political solutions, military solutions, educational, social, and other solutions. So, this is a problem that is multi-faceted and therefore requires a multi-faceted solution. Muslims are an integral part of that solution.

– Dr. Khalid Qazi, Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York.

Action

Assign an action. What can this specific target audience do? Try to give them something concrete that they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages, when possible. For people who have only recently become active due to the events of the past few months, it is particularly important to be explicit about action. Include specific steps and assurances that they can help make a difference by following through.

Join us in standing outside #SCOTUS with so many other orgs on April 25th & laying out our welcome mats for those abroad. #NoMuslimBanEver

On April 25th, we’re laying out our welcome mats for our Muslim neighbors in front of #SCOTUS. Bring your own and tell the world: we stand for religious freedom. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

VPSA Example One

Value

America is a nation of values, founded on an idea – that all men and women are created equal. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people have rights, no matter what they look like or where they came from. So how we treat new and potential immigrants reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans.

Problem

The ban on immigrants from these seven countries violates our most basic values. With this ban, the president is denying due process to people who have already gone through the work to obtain visas. He is denying people the opportunity to contribute to our country, and our opportunity to learn from these newcomers, a time-honored American tradition that has led to the innovative, rich cultural diversity and welcoming spirit that we’re known for on our best days. Instead, this ban shows us at our worst: closed off and closed minded, fearful and backward-looking.

Solution

Instead of focusing on divisive, unnecessary, and illegal bans, this administration needs to focus on the real needs of our immigration system and the people involved in it: migrants, families, employers, and communities.

Action

Make your voice heard. Tell your representatives and the White House that you oppose this harmful and unnecessary ban.

VPSA Example Two

Value

Our country is changing, getting more and more diverse. It might make some of us uncomfortable, but it is our reality, and a constant throughout our history.

Problem

Politicians play on this fear, trying to divide us. They push unwise and divisive ideas like sending federal troops to police our cities, building a border wall, or singling out Muslim Americans because of their religion. If we take the bait, it makes our country weaker, not stronger. Our nation is stronger when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected.

Solution/Action

We need to embrace ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make our country stronger, and we need to speak out against discrimination and prejudice when we see it.

Tips for Talking Due Process & Immigration

Core Message: Due process is a human right central to the American justice system. American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the right to due process.

Most audiences believe that due process in the legal system is a basic right, central to preserving and upholding American values of security, fair treatment, and freedom from government persecution.  However, while audiences hold the concept dear, they do not easily accept that violations occur.  This is in part because the idea is so central to their notion of what America stands for that they have trouble believing we would deny it to anyone here. This embrace of due process as integral to our nation’s identity is an opportunity to tell a story of American values in peril, and to make the case for how to protect and restore them through a commonsense approach to our immigration policies.[1]

  1. Lead with Values. Fairness, equality, America’s founding principles. Assert that the United States should protect due process in order to stand up for American values.
  2. It’s About All of Us. Research shows that arguments focusing on the goal of protecting our core values resonate better than a focus on protecting the specific rights of undocumented immigrants. Emphasize that due process is central to the credibility of our justice system, and that once we start denying rights for one individual or type of people, it puts all individuals’ rights at risk.
  3. Define the Term. While audiences are committed to the concept of due process, not all immediately understand the term itself.  Describing due process as giving someone a fair trial, or access to courts and lawyers, or a set of standardized rules and procedures to protect individuals from being unfairly treated or imprisoned helps to make the term more accessible.
  4. Include positive solutions. This is an opportunity to talk about what does work, not just attack policies that don’t.  Research shows that conversations about immigration that lack positive solutions can result in increased support for enforcement measures among some persuadables.  We should always describe what needs to happen in order to restore and protect due process, and what all Americans can do to support positive and effective changes to our immigration laws.
  5. Include key information about how the current system denies due process rights to immigrants. Participants are not aware of how laws can violate due process and have a hard time believing that this could be happening. Therefore, it is important to keep the language simple and straightforward. If the rhetoric strays from a simple description, the message’s credibility could be put into question.
  6. Find the Right Spokespeople. Because audiences don’t necessarily believe that undocumented immigrants are being denied due process, messenger credibility is important.  Law enforcement, judges and faith leaders will likely be more trusted than immigration advocates or immigrants themselves.
  7. Include the Right Pieces of the Story.  Elements of due process that audiences valued the most include timeliness in granting due process, being allowed to call a loved one and a lawyer, and fair treatment.

Sample Language

  1. Due process – access to courts and lawyers and a basic set of rules for how we’re all treated in the justice system – is a human right and central to our country’s values. We should reject any policies that deny due process, for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that America stands for.
  2. The United States was founded on the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and on basic notions of fairness and justice. Denying due process to any group violates these core values [of fairness and justice] and hurts us all.
  3. When it comes to our outdated immigration laws, we need real solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Current laws are badly broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing them. Tell Congress it’s possible–and imperative–to both modernize our immigration laws and protect our core values at the same time.

[1] This advice is based, in part, on national research on Americans’ perceptions of human rights, which included focus groups specifically on due process, as well as focus groups held in the South around a range of immigration issues.  Belden Rusonnello & Stewart, 2009 and First Research, 2010.

Redefining Sanctuary

Introduction

This past February, as media reports began to circulate detailing a surge in Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids in communities across the country, Americans took to social media to offer support and warnings to their neighbors. In the days that followed, as the true scope of the raids became evident, city leaders issued defiant messages critiquing the raids and reaffirming their support of immigrant communities. These efforts on the part of members of the public and elected officials crystallize the providing of refuge and safety at the core of the principle of ‘sanctuary’— a principle that defines the communities across the country, currently providing much needed legal protection to undocumented immigrants and their families.

A sanctuary jurisdiction can be defined as a locality that limits its participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts as a matter of policy. There are an estimated 47 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States as of December 2016,[1] which, alongside policies like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), have enabled tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants to secure better paying jobs, and to pursue otherwise-unavailable education opportunities.[2]

Despite the integral role such immigration policies continue to play, the new administration has taken persistent steps to undo them. In recent months, there has been an increase in aggressive immigration enforcement policies, the latest of which includes the ending of DAPA and DACA programs initiated by President Obama.

In the face of these challenges, local governments, immigrant rights’ advocates, and policymakers have reaffirmed their commitment to the protection of immigrant communities. However, central to their continued success will be understanding how key audiences are currently thinking and talking about pro-immigration policies and immigration more broadly, and developing effective strategies to challenge anti-immigrant discourse. What issues and policies currently define the sanctuary jurisdictions debate? How does the current discussion of sanctuary jurisdictions intersect with DACA, and overall discussions of immigration in media coverage, social media discourse, and public opinion? How can pro-immigrant advocates ensure the continued support of immigrants and their families in an increasingly anti-immigrant climate? Finally, how can pro-immigrant advocates continue to uplift the voices and leadership of immigrants in a climate where many may feel reluctant to speak out?

In an effort to answer these critical questions, we embarked on a three-part analysis, which consisted of an examination of existing public opinion research, a content analysis of media coverage, and an analysis of social media discourse since January 2016.

Our analysis of existing public opinion research revealed that when asked specifically about deportation policies and levels of support for programs such as DACA, the majority of Americans support the protection of due process that sanctuary jurisdictions provide and, critically, oppose the types of aggressive deportation efforts promoted by the current administration. Our examination of social media data shows there is currently fertile ground for social justice advocates seeking to protect sanctuary jurisdictions and challenge misinformation that attempts to conflate the protection of undocumented immigrants with the promotion of crime. At the same time, our analysis of media coverage over a 20-month period suggests there is currently a pressing need for more coordinated messaging among pro-immigrant advocates.

This report begins with an overview of our findings from our analysis of social media trends over an 18-month period, followed by findings from our analysis of existing public opinion research, and mainstream media coverage. We conclude with a series of recommendations for messaging and audience engagement through social media outreach.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE

Citations

[1] Kenna, Ruairi, Politico, “Sanctuary cities stand firm against Trump,” December 2016,

[2] Center for American Progress, “State-by-State Analysis of the Economic Impact of DACA, DAPA, and DACA Expansion,” June 2015. Retrieved June 19, 2017.

The Opportunity Agenda
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

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.
close search

Hot Topics: