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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 25, 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:
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. #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.
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 Examples:
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Over the last several months, millions of activists, advocates, business leaders, and everyday people have shown enormous courage in fighting to maintain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, demonstrating their commitment to our country’s values of dignity, human rights, and inclusion. For five years, DACA has opened a path for young people brought to the United States without documentation to live, learn, work, and contribute to the communities they call home. DACA has strengthened our nation, enabling the full participation of nearly 800,000 talented young Dreamers around the country.
But today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program after a “wind down” period.
We must condemn the President’s harmful and wrongheaded action, while pressing Congress to pass legislation that ensures the continued participation and dignity of these Dreamers. The Opportunity Agenda’s advice for talking about this critical issue includes:
Lead with Shared Values such as dignity, community, and diversity as our nation’s greatest strength.
Call for Solutions like the proposed bipartisan DREAM Act in Congress and local policies that facilitate the inclusion of immigrants and all young people.
Lift up the voices and leadership of Dreamers and their families, while avoiding the “Good Immigrant/Bad Immigrant” narrative that can unfairly vilify Dreamers’ family members and others.
Connect the Dots to the pattern of bigotry from the Trump administration that includes supporting white supremacists after the killing of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, the pardoning of Sherriff Joe Arpaio, the dismantling of civil rights protections at the Department of Justice, and many other actions.
Call for Action!Americans are more willing than ever to take to the streets, to social media, and to the halls of Congress to voice their values and demand solutions. Give them concrete actions to take.
Avoid Mythbusting. Rather than repeat Sessions’ falsehoods about law and order, crime, and jobs, tell your affirmative story—including accurate facts.
We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. For example:
Value: Our nation is strongest when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected. The DACA program does just that, enabling young Dreamers to fully participate in their education, work, and family life, and to contribute to our nation’s social fabric and economic engine.
Problem: President Trump’s wrongheaded decision to terminate DACA violates our country’s core values, and harms our national interest. It represents a doubling down on the divisive bigotry we heard from him after the white supremacist killing of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.
Solution: Congress must immediately move forward with practical solutions like the proposed bipartisan DREAM Act and American Hope Act that uphold our nation’s values while moving us forward together. Those steps should go hand in hand with the commonsense policies that many cities and states are adopting to ensure that all young people can learn, work, and live their dreams.
Action: Tell your member of Congress to protect the Dreamers and our nation’s future.
In 2011, the U.S. Justice Department sued then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a “pattern of unlawful discrimination” against Latino Arizonans that included discriminatory and unjustified stops, searches, and detentions. As a result, a federal judge ordered him to stop these practices. Last month he was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to do so, opting instead to continue his harassment and intimidation of Latino Arizonans.
By pardoning him, the president sends a message that civil liberties are only for some, and that he is fine with law enforcement flouting the very laws they are meant to uphold. What’s more, on the heels of defending hateful demonstrators in Charlottesville, the president used his first official pardon to give impunity to a notorious violator of equal justice and our Constitution.
We recommend a two-pronged response to this news: 1) immediate condemnation of what Arpaio stands for: racism, racial profiling, and division – via a values lens; and 2) a pivot to the positive vision we have for a country that rejects racial profiling and every other form of racism.
Condemn the Arpaio mindset by describing the values at risk: equal justice, respect, safety, diversity. Frame the problem as a threat to these values.
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 to be clear: it is unacceptable for those who enforce our laws to stereotype people based on the color of their skin, religion, or nation of origin. Law enforcement should act on facts and evidence, not racial bias. If one group can be singled out based on race or ethnicity or religion, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that the United States stands for.
We are stronger when we find ways to encourage participation and contribution, not ways to divide, exclude and discriminate. We have to condemn, in the strongest terms, those who engage in and encourage racist tactics.
Is it right for a mother of Asian or Latino background who speaks with an accent to get asked for her papers—right in front of her children—when her white friend next to her does not? Is it right for a military veteran to be asked for his papers just because he’s of Mexican heritage? Is it right that immigrants who work hard and aspire to be citizens live in daily fear of being stopped, arrested, and deported away from their loved ones? Is it right to create a culture of suspicion in an America that becomes more diverse every day? No. Anyone who engages in or encourages discrimination is flat out wrong. That’s not who we are as a country.
Remind audiences that President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio reinforces a pattern of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of Charlottesville and long before.
President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio doubles down on his defense of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of the Charlottesville hate march and Heather Heyer’s killing.
The President’s pardon of Arpaio’s unconstitutional discrimination, his defense of hate mongers in Charlottesville, and his ban on transgender Americans serving our country are part of an unacceptable pattern of bigotry in his rhetoric, among his advisors like Stephen Miller and Kris Kobach, and in policies like the Muslim ban and the undermining of voting rights.
People of good will, particularly in our government, must go beyond rejection or condemnation of the president’s words and deeds, and take action within the full limits of the Constitution to prevent him from inflicting greater discrimination, division, and harm.
Counter the Trump/Arpaio mindset with a vivid picture of what our country looks like when we work together and replace that suspicion with respect and cooperation.
We are better, as people and as a country, when we welcome our neighbors, care for each other, and help those in need. We are better when we embrace our differences.
We are stronger when we work together and when we learn from each other’s experiences, united as Americans. When people from different backgrounds join together, we all benefit from the diversity of those perspectives. It helps us find new ways to deal with old challenges. But we are not taking full advantage of this source of strength.
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. 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 on this, 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. 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 wherever we see it.
The past few months have seen an increased volume of rhetoric that manufactures fear toward African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, and immigrants. Our goal in this research was to identify narratives that counter fear-based messaging, move persuadable Americans to embrace diversity as a foundational value, and to explore the particular words and phrases that motivate our target audiences to action.
Messaging Recommendations
Talk about how we need to take advantage of our source of strength in diversity. Be aspirational, positive, and talk about embracing our differences.
Define opportunity through the means that enable a tangible payoff: pursuing an education and getting a good paying job or career. Position discrimination as a barrier to opportunity and to those payoffs.
Acknowledge that some people might be uncomfortable with change when asserting the importance of diversity.
Highlight the importance of getting to know and accepting people from different backgrounds as a solution and a strength.
When talking about universal values of being American that should apply to all people, explicitly say “no matter what someone looks like/where they come from/what their race is.”
Talk about our need to hold the wealthiest corporations and individuals accountable for paying their fair share. People are prone to think in zero sum terms. Repositioning the “haves” as the wealthiest corporations (instead of people receiving government assistance) is more effective than trying to argue we all do better when we all do better.
Talk about shared values of respect, dignity, and everyone’s basic rights.
Messaging Do’s and Don’ts
When opponents call it political correctness: Call out manufactured fear as “bait” from “politicians trying to divide us.”
When opponents talk about safety: Talk instead about strength and how fear makes us weaker.
Provide a strong call to action:
Remove the barriers of discrimination that hold people back.
Lean in to ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make us stronger.
Speak out against discrimination and scapegoating when we see it.
Top Messages
Messages were tested for moment-to-moment responses in the online survey. Below are the winning messages that beat the opposition argument and increase people’s willingness to take action. The lines on the graphs are the moment-to-moment reactions to an audio recording of each message by our base, opposition, persuadables, and activists. People dialed positively (above 50) when they had a favorable reaction to the words, and negatively (below 50) when they had an unfavorable reaction. The number in parentheses represents the mean dial rating for that message. Passages in bold were especially effective.
Diversity as Strength
We are stronger when we work together and when we learn from each other’s experiences, united as Americans. When people from different backgrounds join together we all benefit from the diversity of those perspectives. It helps us find new ways to deal with old challenges. But we are not taking full advantage of this source of strength. If we embraced our diversity and valued the views of our fellow Americans, we’d be more likely to find solutions to our problems and better ensure that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their dreams. Whether white, Black, or Latino, whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim, we are all Americans. We need to embrace our different experiences, perspectives, and cultures because united we stand, and divided we fall.
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. 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 on these, 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. 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.
Focus Groups: Lake Research Partners conducted six focus groups in 2017 in Charlotte, North Carolina on January 23, 2017 with white women and mixed gender African Americans, in Phoenix, Arizona on January 25, 2017 with white men and mixed gender Latinos, and in Baltimore, Maryland on February 15 with white men and white women. Participants were recruited to be moderate to independent lean-‐partisan, with a mix of marital status and education level. National Online Dial Survey: Lake Research Partners designed and administered a survey conducted online from March 1 through 6, 2017. The survey reached a total of 1,000 registered voters nationwide with oversamples of 100 African Americans, 100 Latinos, and 100 Millennials. The margin of error for the nationwide adults sample is +/-‐3.1%. It is larger for subgroups. The sample of activists was conducted March 2 through 24.
As we enter the half way point of Donald Trump’s first year as president, the ripple effects of the new Administration’s policies have been far reaching. From the Muslim travel ban, to attempts to dismantle women’s reproductive rights, healthcare, and social safety nets—few have gone untouched in the past 6 months. In the face of these challenges, people across the country have rallied together to challenge the Administration’s attacks on freedom and democracy. Just this week, 45 states refused to provide Trump’s administration with voter data.
It is clear that transformative change is still possible and a collective future based on the shared values of diversity and inclusion is still very much within reach. However, central to our success will be understanding how to effectively reach persuadable audiences, and help them distinguish between legitimate policy concerns and the fearmongering that has come to characterize the Trump era. This requires a nuanced understanding of how Americans are currently thinking and talking about immigration, diversity, and demographic change.
In an effort to provide immigrant advocates, activists, and policymakers with a fuller understanding of attitudes toward immigration and related issues in the current social and political climate, we conducted a social media analysis of online discussions in the United States between January 1st 2015 and January 1st 2017.
The objectives of this research were:
To map trends and shifts in online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities (specifically Latino and Muslim communities), and demographic change over a two-year period;
Identify potential narrative openings to counter negative stereotypes and key influencers currently challenging toxic rhetoric online;
Identify persuadable audiences and narratives that appeal to this segment of the online population.
Our findings indicate that online discussion of immigration, diversity, and demographic change have become more interconnected with discussion of terrorism and crime. The presidential campaign and election of Donald Trump appear to have played a direct role in this new interrelationship. Despite these troubling findings, social media is also emerging as a space where communities of color, Muslim Americans, women, and other traditionally marginalized groups are turning to express their own fears and challenge divisive rhetoric.
Methodology
The analysis of social media data was conducted using Crimson Hexagon, a leading social media analytics software which provides access to publicly available social media data including, but not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, blogs, forums/popular message boards such as Reddit, and mainstream news article comments, reviews, and YouTube comments. Crimson Hexagon enables users to create monitors for any topic or set of phrases and establish customized timeframes for data analysis. Once a monitor is established, Crimson Hexagon’s algorithm categorizes relevant social media data – identifying content volume trends, patterns in conversation, demographics, sentiment shift over time, and audience segment interests/affinities. Interests and affinities are generated by analyzing the social media habits of audiences partaking in particular online discussions (i.e. what brands, topics, or media sources this audience segment tends to share, which can then be compared to other audience segments.)
Using Crimson Hexagon, we examined online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities, and race/diversity in relation to issues of terrorism and crime between January 1st 2015 to January 1st 2017. In order to track how discussions concerning immigration and particular immigrant communities have shifted in the last two years, we created a buzz monitor[1] that included the phrases “immigration,” “immigrant,” “undocumented immigration,” “diversity,” and related terms. The goal of examining these broad terms was to examine how general discussions of these issues and communities have shifted in the last two years, identify when and how immigration and particular immigrant communities are discussed in the context of crime or terrorism, and identify potential openings for countering stereotypes and fear-based narratives.
The two-year timeframe enabled us to examine longitudinal data and identify more long-term patterns in the data. In the overall data population (which consisted of 59,246,987 posts), the majority of analyzed data originated from Twitter (76 percent of total sample), forums and blog post comments (18 percent of total sample), news article comments (6 percent of total sample), and other social media sites such as Facebook and Google Plus (3 percent of total sample). Sampled social media posts are accompanied by a Klout score, which is a number from 1 to 100 that represents how influential the person sharing the content is. Based on share of audience and reach, the more influential a person, the higher the Klout Score.
Key findings from our latest analysis include:
1. There has been a steady increase in the volume of online engagement around immigration and related topics within the last two years, with significant spikes in engagement following extremist attacks.
Over the past two years, over 59 million tweets, Facebook posts, and forum/blog/news comments have been written about immigration, immigrants, race and diversity in the U.S. On average, roughly 2 million social media posts involving immigration, immigrants, and broader discussions of diversity and race were posted each month in the United States during the period of time we studied.
Between June 2015 and November 2016, there was a steady increase in the level of engagement in online discussions of immigration, immigrants, and related topics and three significant spikes in the volume of posts: November 2015, June 2016, and November 2016. The first two spikes in online engagement were a direct result of international and domestic attacks carried out by extremists – the first taking place in Paris, France in November 2015 and the second in an Orlando, Florida nightclub on June 12th 2016. The final spike in online engagement took place in November 2016 as a result of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.
2. The framing of online discussion of immigration has shifted dramatically since the start of Trump’s presidential campaign, with sharp increases in references to “illegal immigrants”, “illegal alien”, and “Muslim” within online content.
Reactions to domestic and international attacks on civilians and inflammatory statements made by Donald Trump have set the tone for the vast majority of online discussions concerning immigration and related topics in the last 12 months. Figures 2 to 4 depict a cluster of the most common phrases associated with immigration and immigrants in the United States from January 2015 to November 2016, with the larger words representing phrases which feature more heavily in online content.
As seen in Figure 2, at the onset of 2015, while discussions of “illegal,” “aliens,” and “Muslim” in relation to “terrorism” were present in online discourse, talk of “reform,” “amnesty,” and “uslatino” also featured heavily in online content. However, by December 2015 following the attacks in Paris, there was a significant shift in online discourse with “trump” and “realdonaldtrump” emerging as central phrases linked to overall discussions of immigration, alongside a more direct link between references to “immigration” with “terrorism,” “illegal,” and “ban”. As of November 2016, references to “trump” feature heavily as well as talk of “illegals” and a closer link between discussions of “Muslims” with “Latino” and “Hispanic” people.
Between January 2015 and January 2017, the percentage of posts making reference to “illegal immigrants” or “illegal alien” increased from 4 percent to 10 percent of total posts within our monitor. As shown in Table 1, as of December 2016, references to “Muslims” and “illegal immigrants” dominate online discussions of immigration and immigrant communities within our monitor.
Table 1: Topic List: December 2016 Showing data from 10,000 posts
3. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration reside in states with the highest concentration of immigrants in the country.
Using Crimson Hexagon’s demographic feature, we examined the location, gender, age, and race of audiences engaging in discussions about immigration and related issues online. From the total sample, 30,786,770 posts had an identifiable location. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration, immigrants, and related topics are located in California (15.39 percent of sampled content), New York (10.28 percent), Texas (10.14 percent), Florida (7.29 percent), and the District of Columbia (4.23 percent).
4. A significant portion of individuals engaging in online discussion of immigration are people of color.
Roughly 75 percent of those engaging online are 35 and above (based on an analysis of 1 million posts), 8 percent are between 25-34, 10 percent are 18-24, and 7 percent are 17 or younger. In terms of race and ethnicity, online users skew heavily white, however there is a significant portion of Asian and Black people engaging in these online discussions. Currently, roughly 65 percent of online audiences discussing immigration and related issues are white, 16 percent are Black, 11 percent Asian, and 7 percent are Latino[1].
5. While conservative media outlets represent a significant portion of Twitter mentions and retweets, progressive and pro-immigrant voices have gained significant traction in recent months in terms of share of the total online conversation.
This following section provides an overview of the key Twitter influencers driving some of the online discussions around immigration, immigrant communities, race, and diversity more broadly. Top influencers on Twitter are the most active authors in a conversation over a particular time period, regardless of their influence (Klout) score. Influence on Twitter is determined by an author’s volume of tweets related to a given topic.
Recently, top mentions on Twitter related to immigration and immigrant communities, including discussions of Muslim and Latino communities, have been dominated by right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and FoxNews (as seen in Figure 5). However, many of these mentions emerge in the context of individuals critiquing these outlets for anti-immigrant coverage. In addition, a significant portion of retweets from the month of December 2016 have come from progressive activists, comedians, or political commentators calling for unity and resistance in the wake Donald Trump’s election. JLUSA founder Glenn Beck, Modern Family actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and writer and political activist Shaun King are just some of the progressives speaking out in recent months and actively countering anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric.
Recommendations
These findings present several important implications for messaging and audience engagement around immigration and diversity in America.
Educate active online progressives to steer clear of myth-busting: Myth-busting currently occupies a significant portion of online communications made by the progressive community, particularly in reaction to political events. For instance, online discussions of immigration see significant spikes in the wake of domestic or international attacks carried out by extremists, particularly those self-identifying (or are identified by the media) as Muslim. Progressives online often seek to dispel or counter negative stereotypes in the wake of these attacks, but are unknowingly contributing to the negative association of immigration/immigrant communities with terrorism. Online progressives need to be educated about the pitfalls of myth-busting and reinforcing the narratives of the opposition.
Focus on implicit bias and structural discrimination: In recent months, discussions of implicit bias and attempts to define racism have become prominent in online discourse related to immigration and diversity in America – representing an important shift in the level of sophistication around these issue areas. As seen in the two sample tweets below, talk of implicit bias and structural racism has gained significant traction among key online audiences (particularly fans of progressive comedians and actors such as Aziz Ansari). This represents an important opening for advocates seeking to promote new campaigns or activate key online audiences.
Leverage collective concern: Much of the online discussions since the election of Donald Trump have focused on people expressing their fear and anxiety about the new administration. This form of expression has been highly intersectional and focused on the collective concern faced by women, Latino and Muslim communities, people of color, and LGBTQ people. For example, in November 2016, the following tweet from Mason Smith was shared over 100K times, while a tweet shared on the same day by activist Shaun King was shared over 42,000 times. Leveraging this emerging collective concern is critical to advocates seeking to develop messaging that galvanizes concerned audiences while uplifting positive values of diversity and unity.
Activate Christians and faith leaders: References to “Christians” now occupy roughly 4 percent of overall discussion on immigration and immigrant communities (as seen in Table 1). Many online commentators have pointed to the seeming disconnect between the teaching of Christianity and the rising anti-immigrant sentiment that has come to characterize Trump’s rise to prominence. In addition, the pro-immigration messages of Pope Francis have been shared frequently in recent weeks, highlighting the rising importance of faith leaders and communities in countering anti-immigrant rhetoric.
[1] However, the lower percentage of Latinos is likely due the limitations of Crimson Hexagon’s racial categorization, specifically the difficulty in accurately assigning racial/ethnic categories to Latino users.
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.
