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.
In the weeks following the 2016 presidential election, and the almost immediate threats posed to the civil liberties of immigrant and Muslim communities, the long-running sketch show Saturday Night Live emerged as one of the most vocal and widely viewed critics of the new administration. Melissa McCarthy’s now infamous characterization of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is just one example of the critical role humor and satire have come to play in challenging abuses of power and also in providing much needed relief and hope in the new Trump era.
Popular culture—which can be defined as “those elements of culture capable of sustaining and perpetuating themselves based on endorsements and participation by large groups of people”1—has long been recognized as a space of creative expression that has given way to lasting social and cultural change. Popular culture has the power to shape our understanding of complex issues and our attitudes toward people we perceive to be different.
However, when depictions in popular entertainment persistently reflect biases, stereotypes, and inaccuracies about people and communities, they help sow division and drive audiences toward unhelpful and inaccurate perceptions. Such negative outcomes have been widely documented in existing research, which has shown how patterns of stereotypical depictions of black men and boys, and communities of color in general can negatively affect people’s attitudes toward these groups.2 As popular entertainment continues to shape the cultural and political landscape, and is increasingly recognized as an important predictor of political decision making, identifying harmful trends and understanding how to counter them through better informed storytelling, media literacy, and advocacy will be of critical importance.
In an effort to better understand the role popular entertainment is playing in shaping attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, this report examines narratives concerning immigrants, immigration, and border communities within a medium with the largest reach and one of the highest levels of audience engagement—broadcast, cable, and streaming television. According to the latest data published by Nielsen, television remains the most widely consumed medium among American adults.3 Eighty-six percent of adults (aged 18+) watch television an average of 5 days a week. This figure increases to 92 percent for individuals 50 and older.4 These statistics do not include the millions of Americans who now access television content through streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. As of 2015, Netflix alone had an estimated 60 million subscribers. In addition to attracting large audiences, television programs have been shown to play a central role in shaping dominant narratives and social norms, particularly attitudes toward people of color, immigrants, formerly incarcerated people, and other traditionally marginalized communities.
This study sets out to answer several key questions: What are the dominant narratives concerning immigration, immigrants, immigrant communities, and related topics as presented in popular television programs; what common storylines or themes emerge; what types of characters or spokespeople are generally represented; and how are these overarching narratives, themes, and characters discussed by engaged audiences on social media?
The report begins with an overview of the frequency and quality of immigrant character representation, dominant narratives, and themes that tend to be associated with immigrants and immigration and concludes with recommendations for audience engagement.
Acknowledgments
The Opportunity Agenda wishes to thank and acknowledge the many people who contributed their time, energy, and expertise to the research and writing of this report. The media content analysis was designed and conducted by Austen Lazarus and Lucy Odigie-Turley. The report was written by Lucy Odigie-Turley, and the recommendations were drafted with the support of Julie Fisher-Rowe, Betsy Richards, and Janelle Heller-Treibitz. Accompanying illustrations were created by founder and president of Graphic Advocacy Project, Hallie Jay Pope, and the report was designed and formatted by Lorissa Shepstone of Being Wicked. This research was supervised and edited by Juhu Thukral.
We also want to express our great appreciation to Margo Harris, who edited and proofread the report, and Ross Mudrick for providing publication and editing assistance.
Finally, this research would not have been possible without the generous support of our funders: Unbound Philanthropy, The Ford Foundation, The Ford Freedom Fund, Oak Foundation, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Libra Foundation, JPB Foundation, The Open Society Foundation, and W.K Kellogg Foundation.
About The Opportunity Agenda
The Opportunity Agenda was founded in 2006 with the mission of building the national will to expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, the organization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions that expand opportunity for everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizes and translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions, uses communications and media to understand and influence public opinion, and identifies and advocates for policies that improve people’s lives.
1 PopJustice, Nathan B. Cumming Foundation, 2016, p. 11. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
2 The Opportunity Agenda, ”Media Portrayal of Black Men and Boys,” 2013. Retrieved April 20, 2017.
3 Nielsen, “The Nielsen Total Audience Report Q1 2016,” 2016. Retrieved January 15, 2017.
On Monday, June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed portions of President Trump’s Muslim ban to go into effect, continued to prohibit other portions from going forward, and agreed to fully consider the constitutionality of the ban this fall.
The High Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the ban, but has let parts of it go forward while it considers the ban’s legality. It’s important to call out why the ban’s religious discrimination is not only unlawful but bad for our nation. We hope the following quick tips, based on communications research, experience, and input from partners around the country, helps with this task as we all move forward.
Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action
Values
Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to new arguments when they are framed by shared values. For the Muslim ban, there are three sets of recurring values that we want to keep at the center of the conversation:
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 see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution, and so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.”
– Senator Cory Booker
Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all…It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.”
– Netflix CEO Reed Hastings
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.
America is better when we lead with freedom, not fear. We cannot allow fear to dictate our decisions. We must act with requisite caution, but also with compassion and moral clarity.
– National Immigration Forum
We need to protect all our brothers and sisters of all faiths, including Muslims, who have lost family, home and country.
– Bishop Joe S Vásquez, US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors. Because that’s what you do when you see someone in need – you help them.
– Ellen DeGeneres, using the plot from her film Finding Dory to comment on the border wall.
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
It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on something that is really not necessary. This is a 15th century solution to a nonexistent problem. We need a 21st century, common-sense border policy that upholds the dignity of our border residents.
– Vicki Gaubeca, Director, ACLU New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, New Mexico.
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.
There is something more important and powerful than all three branches of government. It is you – the people.
– New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio in support of protesters.
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.
We vehemently oppose any proposal or statements calling for a ban on refugees, as well as discrimination based on religion or nationality. As a nation founded in part by refugees and immigrants, these kind of discriminatory policies dishonor our history, beliefs and values.
– Welcoming America
[The Muslim ban is] a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage… As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.
– Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif.
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 this Muslim ban, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.
Restricting a religion… is as short-sighted as it is immoral. More intelligent would be to increase resources dedicated to regional refugee process centers so security checks occur in timely fashion.”
– National Immigration Forum
The United States is a nation governed by the rule of law and not the iron will of one man. President Trump now has learned that we are a democratic republic where the powers of government are not dictatorial. They are limited. The courts are the bulwark of our democracy that protects individual rights and guards against the overreaching of an administration that confuses its will for the American public’s.”
– American Civil Liberties Union
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.
Additional Tips
Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions
Storytelling features, at its core, heroes and heroines who bring issues such as immigration to life, so stories about individual triumph and tragedy are an obvious component. However, without sufficient context, audiences can limit a story’s implication to the individual level, attributing successes and failures to personal responsibilities and actions that have little to do with the system-level change we are seeking in our immigration policies.
Telling Affirmative Stories
We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.
In fact, repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or “This order assumes that refugees don’t already go through a comprehensive vetting system, but they do.” A better approach: “Refugees undergo months of vetting and interviews before they are considered for entry into the U.S. And perhaps as a result, rates of unlawful behavior among these groups is lower than among people who were born here. They are on average one of the most law-abiding groups of people you could hope for in your community.”
Recent executive orders pose grave threats to our communities and our values. As we organize to counter, undo, and prevent further damage, strategic messaging is more important than ever. We hope the following quick tips, based on communications research, experience, and input from partners around the country, helps with this task as we all move forward.
Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action
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
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, our founding legal documents.
We see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution, and so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.
– Senator Cory Booker
Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un- American it pains us all…It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.
– Netflix CEO Reed Hastings
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.
America is better when we lead with freedom, not fear. We cannot allow fear to dictate our decisions. We must act with requisite caution, but also with compassion and moral clarity.
– National Immigration Forum
We need to protect all our brothers and sisters of all faiths, including Muslims, who have lost family, home and country.
– Bishop Joe S Vásquez, US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors. Because that’s what you do when you see someone in need – you help them.
– Ellen DeGeneres, using the plot from her film Finding Dory to comment on the border wall.
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
It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on something that is really not necessary. This is a 15th century solution to a nonexistent problem. We need a 21st century, common-sense border policy that upholds the dignity of our border residents.
– Vicki Gaubeca, Director, ACLU New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, New Mexico.
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.
There is something more important and powerful than all three branches of government. It is you – the people.
– New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio in support of protesters.
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.
We vehemently oppose any proposal or statements calling for a ban on refugees, as well as discrimination based on religion or nationality. As a nation founded in part by refugees and immigrants, these kind of discriminatory policies dishonor our history, beliefs and values.
– Welcoming America
[The Muslim order is] a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage… As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.
– Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif.
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.
Restricting a religion… is as short-sighted as it is immoral. More intelligent would be to increase resources dedicated to regional refugee process centers so security checks occur in timely fashion.
– National Immigration Forum
The United States is a nation governed by the rule of law and not the iron will of one man. President Trump now has learned that we are a democratic republic where the powers of government are not dictatorial. They are limited. The courts are the bulwark of our democracy that protects individual rights and guards against the overreaching of an administration that confuses its will for the American public’s.
– American Civil Liberties Union
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.
Additional Tips
Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions
Storytelling features, at its core, heroes and heroines who bring issues such as immigration to life, so stories about individual triumph and tragedy are an obvious component. However, without sufficient context, audiences can limit a story’s implication to the individual level, attributing successes and failures to personal responsibilities and actions that have little to do with the system-level change we are seeking in our immigration policies.
Tell Affirmative Stories
We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.
In fact, repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or “This order assumes that refugees don’t already go through a comprehensive vetting system, but they do.” A better approach: “Refugees undergo months of vetting and interviews before they are considered for entry into the U.S. And perhaps as a result, rates of unlawful behavior among these groups is lower than among people who were born here. They are on average one of the most law-abiding groups of people you could hope for in your community.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Obama’s executive actions on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA+) on April 18. This case is of extreme importance to millions of immigrants and their families, to communities across the country, and to our national identity.
Here are a few tips on talking about the case and the oral argument:
Lead with values.
Family: At its core, DAPA is about keeping families together. Eighty-nine percent of those eligible for the program are parents of American citizens.
Justice: These programs are about justice for millions of workers, parents, students, and neighbors who just want to contribute to and participate in this country, like anyone else.
Our National Identity: This case is about who we are as a country―one who welcomes or one who excludes. We can’t allow the rhetoric of fear and hate win out over common sense and inclusion. The extremists who brought this case to the court are blocking real solutions that affect real people and families, and they’re doing it to make a political point.
Stress that DAPA and DACA+ are commonsense solutions and well within the law.
It is the president’s lawful right to take executive action to set priorities on immigration enforcement. President Obama is enforcing existing laws passed by Congress, using discretion granted to him by Congress. President Obama’s deferred action initiatives are practical, legal, and in line with actions taken by other presidents from both parties.
Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action to shape immigration priorities over the last 50 years, including presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Most Americans would agree that a father or mother of a U.S. citizen or a young person who came to this country as a child are not priorities for deportation, which is what DAPA and expanded DACA establish.
This case is about all of us.
Ensuring full economic participation and contribution of millions of American families will create jobs and add billions to our tax coffers.
A ruling against DAPA and expanded DACA won’t just impact immigrant families―it will impact everyone. Our communities don’t want to experience the chaos of tearing families apart or making it harder for some folks to work and support a family. Inclusion and participation make our communities strong. Targeting parents of American citizens for deportation only weakens them.
Based on recommendations from the DAPA/DACA+ Communications Workgroup Messaging Guide.
Background on United States v. Texas
On November 20, 2014, President Obama issued a series of executive actions that clarified immigration priorities. These executive actions expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and initiated the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA). These initiatives allowed qualified individuals to come forward and request a grant of deferred action on deportation, de-prioritizing their deportations. These programs also granted recipients with temporary work authorization.
Shortly after Obama’s announcement of these executive actions, Texas and several other states challenged the actions. The judge in the Texas lawsuit, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Texas and the other plaintiffs. Judge Hanen held that Texas had standing because DAPA and the expanded DACA would require Texas to issue more state driver’s licenses, and thus presented a sufficient legal injury on the state of Texas. The court also held that the federal government did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because of the preliminary injunction, millions of qualified immigrants are currently unable to seek relief under the expanded DACA and DAPA programs.
The United States government challenged the ruling and requested that the preliminary injunction be lifted pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Hanen’s holding, and the programs are still inactive pursuant to the preliminary injunction.1
The Supreme Court is now reviewing the challenge to the President’s executive actions. The outcome of this case will impact millions of immigrants. This case will also likely impact the discourse around immigration and may be an opportunity for political candidates to further articulate their positions on immigration.
1. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d. 733 (5th Cir. 2015).
The U.S.-‐Mexico border and the communities surrounding it represent many things: billions of dollars in trade, shared histories and cultures between the countries, and home to millions of people. But these communities are also a pawn in political discourse and misguided calls to “secure the border,” all while avoiding a meaningful dialogue on reforming immigration policies and policing practices. The resulting buildup in border enforcement and policing has a profound effect on the individuals and families in the region, including those living up to 100 miles away from the actual border, and beyond. While this buildup disproportionately affects communities on our southern border with Mexico, many of Border Patrol’s misguided policies and tactics also affect the quality life for communities across our northern border with Canada. In fact, roughly two-‐thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an international border.
This memo includes guidance for telling a story about policing in border communities that will bolster public opinion for positive policies that grow and sustain communities rather than policies that disrupt and divide them.
Current Public Opinion
Although policymakers most often connect border policy to conversations about immigration, it’s important to recognize that, for the millions of residents who call border communities home, holding U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) accountable to policing best practices is also a matter of promoting public safety and community trust. With roughly 44,000 armed officers, including Border Patrol, CBP is our nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
Support for increased enforcement in border communities is based on how politicians and the media portray those communities. The story that generates people’s concerns and bolsters support for enforcement is one of a chaotic border with little order, dangerous people, and drug and gang activities. That is not, however, the border region that most people living there would recognize. In fact, we know that most border residents feel safe in their communities, and that those communities are, in fact, among the safest in the country. 1 2
Misperceptions of border communities—and connecting their issues only to the larger debate about immigration—serve to fuel a dominant narrative that we must “secure the border.” As a result, we see a lack of support for commonsense policies at the border as current public opinion reflects concerns about the state of the border and translates to support for increased enforcement and policing.
We need to change the underlying story about border communities and policing in order to influence public opinion and change policy. Immigration advocates and others talking about border policies must move away from “border security first” messaging. We have to replace this failed messaging with an emphasis on economic opportunity, public safety, human rights, and community trust. Doing so will build opportunity for both immigration policy reform and policing reforms in border communities that put an end to military-‐style and discriminatory policing that offends American values of equality and justice. Below are three tips to consider when telling a new story.
1. Control the Context: Community vs. Chaos, People vs. Political Rhetoric
Telling stories about particular Border Patrol abuses and human rights violations is not sufficient to change the overarching story about the border region. As storytellers, it’s key to shape the entire narrative, centering it on stories about communities and people. That way, audiences have a picture in their heads of a community similar to their own, with similar concerns, challenges, and opportunities. It’s through this lens that they can better understand why excessive policing is a problem and why a militarized force is undesirable.
Sample Language
The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it. It is a region where responsible investment can be prosperous for the entire nation.
The border is more than a line. Millions of people live in border communities and many more know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible buildup of border enforcement.
Focus on Goals, Values, and People
Research completed by a coalition of immigrant rights and border region groups in 2013 recommends relying on two main themes while telling this story: goals and people. Our goals should be to maintain the safety of our communities while upholding our values. And we should consistently insert people into the story to remind audiences that we are talking about communities, not barren desert or battle zones, as some of the rhetoric would suggest.
Goals: Values + Safety
We want immigration laws and law enforcement to uphold the American values of justice and fairness for all, while ensuring public safety. The current system is ineffective and it violates our values—it is unfair and inhumane.
People: Families, Workers, Children, Community Members
People sacrifice so much coming to America to make a better life, sometimes to escape desperate poverty and violence. Many are families with children. They work hard, pay taxes, and volunteer in their communities. They love America and want to contribute to our country.3
Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands. When Border Patrol agents racially profile and detain community residents who are commuting to work and school at checkpoints located up to 100 miles away from the international border, their biased policing offends American values of equality and justice and hurts public safety by creating mistrust.
Additional Sample Language
Throughout the Southwest border region, there are urban and rural communities with deep roots and a long history of diversity, economic vibrancy, and cooperation. Border communities, like communities throughout the country, are entitled to human rights, due process, and policies that recognize their dignity, humanity, and the constitutional protections that this nation values.
Unfortunately, policymakers have far too often thrown border communities under the bus by pursuing policies that are ineffective and wasteful for security. These injustices, which go against equality, fairness, and law and order, are frustrating to Americans and completely avoidable. We can and should make commonsense policy changes to uphold human rights and due process in all of our communities.
We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect border communities, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade and protect human rights at the border through investment in critical infrastructure projects and greater accountability for border agents.
2. Frame the Problem: A Threat to Values
Law enforcement abuses, excessive policing, and militaristic strategies on American soil are central issues in border communities, but they are only part of the problem. The core problem to focus on in telling a new story about border communities and policing is how these tactics threaten the values we hold dear as a country, including protecting due process and human rights, respecting the integrity of communities, and spending our resources wisely.
Rights Violations
Research shows that when talking about these issues, more people are persuaded by conversations that begin by examining what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of values we want to uphold, than by those starting with a focus on the rights of certain groups or individuals, or on specific rights violations—like illegal searches and seizures.
Community Disruption
Paint a picture of checkpoints and daily routines disrupted because of misguided enforcement. Show how racial profiling affects community members, and how law enforcement’s shameful treatment of U.S. citizens and immigrants in border communities does not reflect the kind of country we want to live in.
Sample Language: Op-Ed Excerpt
Unchecked abuse and corruption within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be part of any discussion regarding the US southern border and the time has come to talk about reforming the agency. The Obama administration has the means to move us forward and should do so immediately.
Earlier this summer, the administration released a report calling for significant reforms to CBP to prevent widespread corruption and expand much-‐needed oversight. CBP has come under increased scrutiny as a nationwide debate continues around law enforcement’s relationship to communities, especially communities of color.
For years, CBP has failed to hold its officers accountable when they use excessive force and kill unarmed civilians. The agency fails to document and report racial inequities in who its officers stop and search, and fails to detect and deter counterproductive racial profiling that undermines values of fairness and equality. These excesses infringe daily on the rights and dignity of border communities and their residents, who go about their daily lives up to 100 miles away from the physical border yet experience CBP permanent checkpoints and patrols in their neighborhoods. For example, a recent report based on more than 50 complaints in New Mexico and Texas discovered abuses such as racial profiling, unjustified searches and detentions, physical and verbal abuse, intimidation, and interfering with emergency medical treatment. Ninety percent of people reporting these abuses were U.S citizens and 81 percent were Latino.
These incidents are not isolated. An investigation by Politico Magazine found that “between 2005 and 2012, nearly one CBP officer was arrested for misconduct every single day;” that CBP rapidly recruited agents without proper vetting or supervision, making systemic misconduct highly likely; and that, by 2014, the number one criminal priority of the FBI’s McAllen, Texas office was investigating Border Patrol agents.
A review of over 800 complaints provided by CBP’s Office of Internal Affairs reveals that CBP failed to hold officers accountable in 97 percent of the cases in which Internal Affairs completed an investigation. Almost 80 percent of the total complaints are based on physical abuse or excessive force. The rest are based on abuses including misconduct, mistreatment, racial profiling, improper searches, inappropriate touching during strip searches, or sexual abuse. In May, the former Chief of Internal Affairs, James Tomsheck, came forth as a whistleblower, saying that he witnessed a “spike” of more than 35 sexual misconduct cases between 2012 and 2014 and an agency culture that ignored and swept away corruption. A lawsuit brought by mothers and children seeking asylum last summer alleged that CBP officers applied coercion to dissuade them from getting an attorney and asserting their legal rights, in violation of domestic and international law.
Unacceptable Tactics: Racial Profiling
Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.
To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.
Define the term racial profiling and fully explain that it is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.
Too often, law enforcement, including Border Patrol, use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent, instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety. Border Patrol—part of our nation’s largest police force—should stop claiming to play by different rules than those expected of local police and hold its agents accountable to end this ineffective, harmful practice.
Offer multiple real-‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide multiple examples that include “unexpected” people of color—e.g., business people, faith leaders, honor students—who’ve been wrongly stopped.
Wrong Priorities: Misguided Spending
Current border policies and spending violate our values. We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending toward drones, weapons, and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
Sample language
For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitated protections to civil liberties.
Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-‐of-‐entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving Border Patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need to hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
3. Redirect: Talk Choices and Alternative Solutions
Remind audiences of the goals for any policing policy: what does any community want and need from law enforcement? Safety, respect, transparency, and accountability.
When people are detained or profiled, we want to make sure they are treated fairly and that law enforcement respects rights like due process, equality before the law, and access to courts and lawyers—bedrock American legal values.
Keep Solutions Front and Center
Audiences need ideas about what does work and they don’t respond well to attacks on bad policies alone. The public does not respond well if they believe a speaker is only suggesting that existing laws not be enforced and conversations without positive solutions can quickly turn to support for enforcement measures.
Instead, focus on and give context to everyday border residents—college students, mothers and fathers, or business owners—who feel the effects of biased and military-‐ style policing by Border Patrol and are relatable to your audience. Americans understand that policing based on evidence versus bias is not only more effective, but also upholds our values of fairness and equality. Many communities nationwide also relate to concerns of military-‐style policing that emphasize using force over prioritizing de-escalation and protecting the paramount value of human life. When we contextualize Border Patrol abuses as offending our values and hurting everyday border residents, we help our audience broaden their lens and understand more fully who is affected by irresponsible policing practices.
Clearly State Who Should Do What
We need to assign responsibility when talking solutions, making sure we are clear about what we are asking of different entities.
Sample Language
The White House should direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prohibit the use of racial profiling. CBP should document racial and other inequities in who officers stop, question, and search and publicly share that data. It should also train its officers on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, on prohibitions against racial profiling, and on implicit bias.
CBP should scale back military-‐type tactics and equip its officers who interact with the public with body-‐worn cameras paired with privacy protections. CBP should also reduce its zone of operations from 100 to 25 miles from the actual border, and determine in which areas an even shorter distance is reasonable.
DHS should establish an independent Border Oversight Task Force that includes border communities and has subpoena power over government officials so it can investigate and hold accountable abusive officers. It should also mandate greater oversight in order to end inhumane detention conditions; physical, sexual, or verbal abuse; and inadequate access to medical care. These are just the first steps of many that should be taken.
1. Border Network for Human Rights, Polling Report
When drafting responses to the President’s announcement today, please keep in mind the particular needs of border communities, whose voices are often ignored and rights trampled in attempts to “secure the border.” You can help your border allies by considering the following five tips. This advice was developed with input from the ACLU of New Mexico, Alliance San Diego, American Friends Service Committee US/Mexico Border Program, Border Network for Human Rights, Colibri Center for Human Rights, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.
Core Message:President Obama’s announcement provides much-needed relief to millions of people and is a real victory for the country. However, there are still concerns. For one thing, today’s announcement continues and reinforces some misguided policies that affect communities in the border region. The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us.
1. Humanize the discussion. Consider terms like “border communities,” “border region,” and “borderlands.”
The border is more than a line, and referring simply to “the border” suggests we’re only talking about a fence and how to protect it.
Focus on the people, culture, and history of border communities and stress that those communities suffer when misguided policies cause human rights abuses and drain resources better spent on more productive uses.
Naming specific communities – San Diego, El Paso, Tucson – can help people visualize the communities affected by irresponsible border policies and can help to counter the people-less desert scenery sometimes conjured up by “border.”
Sample language: The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse – home to millions of people from San Diego to Brownsville. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it.
Sample language: Millions of people live in the border region or many people know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible build up of border enforcement
2. Stress that communities need to have a say in decisions that affect them.
Border communities’ voices have been drowned out or ignored in political debates around immigration. Underscore that any policy must be responsive to the expressed needs of border residents.
Sample language: We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect the border region, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade at the border and invest in critical infrastructure projects.
Sample language: Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands.
3. Talk about how current border policies and spending result in violations of our values.
We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending towards drones, weapons and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
In describing the all-too-frequent tragedies that occur, balance those stories with specific policy solutions that will help to prevent them.
Stress that Border Patrol must be held accountable. We need policies that ensure oversight, training and equipment like body-worn cameras that will help ensure the protection of human rights.
Sample language: For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitate protections to civil liberties.
Sample Language: Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-of-entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving border patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
4. Repeating myths isn’t helpful, even when attempting to discredit them.
There have been many outrageous and false stories about the border in the media, many promoted by members of Congress and others in power. It’s important to promote truthful stories about border communities instead of providing further publicity to false reports about terrorists, drug cartels and the like.
5. Don’t rely on “border security” as an attempt to bridge partisan divides.
Suggesting that helping 11 million people should come at the expense of border communities in an attempt to garner more conservative support is not helpful to the movement, and actively harmful to the millions of people who live in border communities. We can advocate for a pathway to citizenship without reinforcing the myth that the border is not secure.
