Search

Messaging And Report Tag: immigration

Talking About Policing Issues: Border Communities

​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

2. USA Today, On Border Violence

3. Southern Border Communities Center; CAMBIO, Updated Narrative Messages

​

5 Tips for Talking About Border Communities

​

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.

​

The Opportunity Survey – Immigration Findings

The Opportunity Survey, our national research into public opinion and attitudes on inequality, delves into questions regarding immigration, experiences of discrimination, and opportunity. Findings include:

There is substantial support for legislation to address the status of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, support a path to citizenship for these individuals—and that grows sharply to 83 percent if they first pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and pass background checks.

However, Americans divide between blaming inequality faced by undocumented immigrants on social conditions or on their own behavior—36 percent apiece, with the rest blaming some of both.

The most important predictors of support for a path to citizenship and of support for other policy items are:

  • thinking that social conditions, more than group members’ behaviors, are responsible for inequality faced by undocumented immigrants and Latinos alike
  • believing in “linked fate” in prosperity
  • seeing inequality as unacceptable
  • having had recent personal interactions with undocumented immigrants and Latinos
  • believing that government programs intended to address inequality actually work

There is a strong relationship between support for immigration measures and support for other social issues, with those who say they are likely to take action (or already are doing so) to support a path to citizenship being 36 to 49 points more willing than others to take action in support of fair treatment of minorities in the justice system (77 vs. 28 percent), encouraging equal opportunity (92 vs. 51 percent), and reducing poverty (92 vs. 56 percent).

  • In terms of allied groups, nonwhites and unmarried women in particular are more likely than the general population to be willing to take action (or to be already doing so) to support a path to citizenship, fair treatment of minorities in the justice system, reducing poverty, and encouraging equal opportunity overall.
  • The gap between nonwhites and the general population is especially large on two issues: supporting a pathway to citizenship (60 vs. 40 percent) and fair treatment of minorities in the justice system (69 percent of nonwhites are willing to act to support this vs. 48 percent overall).

Talking about the American Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment

Overview

  • Adopted in 1868 and part of the “Reconstruction Amendments,” section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni- ties of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
  • Several debates—including discussions at the time of the clause’s writing and adoption, and the subsequent 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case—have ended with the U.S. upholding citizenship rights of U.S.-born children of unlawfully present immigrants. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes U.S.-born children of diplomats of foreign countries and children of hostile invaders.

Public Opinion

  • In 2010, polling revealed that the public was split on ending or preserving citizenship based on birth in the U.S. for children of undocumented immigrants, but generally opposed to amending the Constitution to eliminate that practice.
  • Few Americans are familiar with the text or history of the 14th Amendment.

Ideas for Talking About the 14th Amendment: Key Values and Themes

  • This is about all of us and protecting our rights. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens.
  • These proposals are unworkable and divisive. They would place huge burdens on American citizens and create a giant new bureaucracy.
  • The real solution is commonsense change to our immigration policies, something the vast majority of Americans support.
  • Note: The phrase “American citizenship clause” is likely more persuadable than the term “birthright citizenship,” which may put off some persuadable audiences because it could connote an immediate demand for rights by people who they perceive to be lawbreakers. Our recommendation is to describe the constitutional provision as the “American citizen- ship clause,” which “guarantees that kids who are born in America are American citizens” rather than repeating the phrase “birthright citizenship.”

Additional Principles

  • Lead with values. This is a debate about what our country stands for and what it means to be an American. Facts are important, but they should be communicated within a values frame. Here, the relevant values relate to our constitutional freedoms and protections and to the moral and practical instability that eroding them would cause.
  • Remind audiences that this is about all of us. Frame the debate in terms of the 14th Amendment’s importance to all of us and our nation as a whole, not just in terms of immi- grants specifically. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens of the United States of America.
  • Use the pro-immigrant “Core Narrative” themes developed and used by leaders and groups around the country: a commonsense approach, upholding our nation’s values, and moving forward together. “Commonsense approach” appeals to Americans’ desire for pragmatic and effective approaches, and their recognition that rash anti-immigrant proposals are unrealistic. “Upholding our nation’s values” reconnects the immigration discussion to the kind of country we aspire to be. And “moving forward together” highlights the ways in which immigrants are already a part of us as a nation and add value to our economy and culture.
  • Understand the gender dynamics of this conversation. Immigrant women are often invisible in public discourse about immigration policy. Discussions of the 14th Amendment are inherently about women and their decisions, but do not center on women as whole people. In the same way that the term “anchor babies” is deeply problematic in its suggestion that the natural process of creating a family is being used as a legal scheme to gain citizenship, the erasure of women from the conversation is problematic as they become merely vessels in this scheme, and not fully-formed humans. To counter this problem, highlight how, and provide examples of, women are leaders and contributors in a range of contexts and environments: family, work, community, business. It’s important to populate the discourse with these stories while also taking on conversations about the 14th Amendment.
  • Remember that most Americans are unfamiliar with the content or history of the 14th Amendment. We should not assume specific knowledge about the amendment on the part of our audience, but can help shape their understanding of the provision and its importance.
  • Don’t waste time “myth busting,” which research shows tends to reinforce the idea you’re trying to combat. For example, don’t get mired in the debate over whether immigrants come here to have children—state the facts, then pivot and return to your affirmative point.

Sample Talking Points

“It’s a core constitutional protection that if my kids are born here, they are Americans. Destroy- ing that principle would be a dangerous mistake that would threaten freedom for all of us.”

“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was and is crucial to making us one nation, indivisi- ble. It’s an important part of our history, and vital to our future.”

“We can’t undermine who we are as a country and as a people for short-term political purposes. Instead of tampering with our Constitution, let’s move forward with commonsense immigration reform that’s languishing in Congress.”

“In addition to being wrong for America, this is not a realistic proposal. If passed, it would visit unimaginable difficulty on all 300 million of us who are American citizens. Today, when your kids are born here, you know, and everyone knows, that they are American citizens. But what if when your child was born you had to go through an application process, prove to federal, state, and local bureaucracy that you are a citizen, be entered in a database that is subject to error and delay? It would be expensive, burdensome, slow, inaccurate, and totally unacceptable to the American people.”

“If these political operatives have their way, your birth certificate will no longer be proof that you are an American. And your kids will have to prove their grandparents’ citizenship and your citizenship just to prove their own citizenship, all through some new bureaucracy that will have to be set up. That’s not the kind of country we are, and it’s not what Americans want.”

5 Tips for Talking About Border Communities Without Talking about a Wall

​

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.

Immigration Policy Solutions: Supporting Child Migrants

​

Many Americans are frustrated with our immigration policies. But research and experience show that it’s not enough to focus only on the problems with our current approach. We also need to paint a picture of what the country would look like with workable, commonsense policies in place. This document discusses policies regarding unaccompanied child migrants and children coming with their families, and solutions so that we treat them in a manner consistent with human rights and due process.

Topline Message:

Our communities should act with care and compassion toward unaccompanied child migrants who have increasingly arrived at the border after fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries, and are attempting to reunify with their families. Unfortunately, our government has responded to this serious refugee situation by substantially increasing family detention and putting children on a fast-track deportation process without legal representation. This is a grave injustice and does not reflect our national values. Instead, we should implement policies that preserve children’s domestic and international human rights protections, particularly when they are in detention; provide them with legal representation; improve community support by providing case management services to all children upon reunification; and address the driving factors that push children that make a perilous journey.

Solutions

Renew Our Commitment to International Human Rights Norms

What the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Should Do:

  • Ensure that every accompanied and unaccompanied child from contiguous countries such as Mexico is screened by licensed child welfare professionals to ensure appropriate care while in detention and adequate screening for immigration relief. Refrain from interviewing children from non-contiguous countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras who will be screened by licensed child welfare professionals in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Current screening practices should also be improved so that child survivors of trafficking and persecution are effectively identified, referred for appropriate services, and when appropriate agents assist with trafficking certification.
  • Clarify DHS standards for prosecutorial discretion to recognize that children are eligible for a favorable exercise of that discretion, especially when deportation is against the child’s best interests. Prosecutorial discretion for all children should trump a child’s categorization as an enforcement priority if they have recently crossed the border.
  • End the use of family detention and utilize a range of alternatives, including placing families in community-based case management services or licensed child welfare programs that support the least restrictive form of custody, safety, and access to legal services.
  • Ensure that children and other people in vulnerable situations are not exploited or abused in short-term or long-term custody. This includes creating greater oversight and accountability to prevent shackling, handcuffing, inhumane detention conditions, inadequate access to medical care, and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by implementing public, enforceable standards for all DHS detention facilities. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should implement an access policy for civil society to allow for regular oversight and monitoring of its facilities. DHS should place child welfare professionals to oversee the care and custody of all children in CBP custody.

What Department of Justice Should Do:

  • Exempt children from the expedited removal process and ensure that children can consult with legal services before accepting voluntary return.

What Congress Should Do:

  • Require that the “best interests of the child” be “a primary consideration” in all procedures, actions, and decisions made by a federal agency or court re: unaccompanied children and principal child applicants.
  • In asylum cases, base the definition of “membership in a particular social group” on the immutable  characteristics test first used in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

Ensure that Child Migrants Receive Adequate Representation

What Congress Should Do:

  • Mandate the appointment of legal counsel for all children in removal proceedings, including a mix of private pro bono representation and direct representation by appointed lawyers.
  • Establish a national legal service program to provide children with information about their legal rights   and conduct individual legal assessments.
  • Permit immigration judges the discretion to appoint an independent child advocate when necessary.

Encourage Safe and Legal Migration

What the Administration Should Do:

  • Allow parents who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to apply for derivative TPS for their children.
  • Expedite applications under the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program.
  • Broaden access to the CAM Program by allowing parents without legal status to sponsor children and permitting children with viable refugee claims who do not have a parent in the United States to apply.
  • Use executive authority to permit a larger number of unaccompanied children into the United States as refugees and expand the use of humanitarian parole to include children fleeing harm and/or reuniting  with family.
  • End support of interdiction policies that deny children the opportunity to seek protection.

Address the Driving Factors for Migration

What the Administration and Congress Should Do:

  • Invest in community-based and comprehensive youth violence prevention strategies.
  • Make assistance to police and military conditional on compliance with basic human rights standards, particularly in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, and use this leverage to reduce corruption and dissuade “mano dura” policies (zero-tolerance criminal law policies that violate human rights).
  • Strengthen the regional systems of protection for children and migrants in Central America and Mexico, particularly in child welfare, asylum, humanitarian visa, and anti-trafficking.
  • End economic agreements and policies that displace people and fail to uphold human and labor rights.
  • Sign, adopt, and ratify the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Their Families and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Talking Points

  • We should act with care and compassion toward children fleeing persecution and harm.
  • How we treat child migrants should reflect our national values of due process and human rights.

The research cited in this document is current as of June 2015.

​

Unaccompanied Children at the U.S.-Mexico Border

​

Numerous reports and several children have reported increasing violence in their home countries and a lack of protection against it which spurred them to flee. Upon arrival, some children reunite with family members they have not seen in many years, but their migration is often motivated by violence and other factors, in addition to family separation.

Most Americans think that the U.S. should provide refugee to such children. In a recent survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, researchers found that a majority of Americans (70%) believe that the United States should offer shelter and support while beginning a process to determine whether the children should be deported or allowed to stay in the U.S. In contrast, only 26% believe that the children should be deported immediately back to their home countries.1

The study also reveals (Fig. 1) that there are large demographic differences in support for the two competing policy responses, where age appears to be the most predictive. 18-29 years olds are the most likely group (82%) to support aiding the children while beginning a process to determine whether they should be deported or allowed to stay. In contrast, those 65 years of age and older are the least likely group (50%) to support aid and most likely group to support immediate deportation (45%).

The same study also shows (Fig. 2) that most Americans (69%) believe that children arriving from Central America should be treated as refugees and allowed to stay in the U.S. if authorities determine that it is not safe for them to return to their home countries. Although majorities across party lines want these children treated as refugees, Democrats (83%) are significantly more supportive than Independents (66%) and Republicans (52%).

Additionally, the study identified partisan differences in opinions about the cause of the increase in migration over the past few years. A majority (56%) of Americans believe that Central American families are mostly trying to keep their kids safe in difficult circumstances, and a majority of Democrats (69%) and Independents (54%) also support this explanation. In contrast, a majority of Republicans (52%) believe that families are arriving in the U.S. primarily seeking a back door to immigrate to the U.S.

In general, a majority of Americans (71%) believe that we should offer refuge and protection to those who come to the U.S. fleeing harm in their home countries, but appear to be torn about whether or not the children are, in fact, fleeing harm. While 45 percent of the population believes that these children are refugees from violence and threats to their safety, 34 percent believe that the children are coming to the U.S. seeking better economic and educational opportunities. This divide in public opinion, according to recent focus groups, may be related to little of the actual conditions in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.2 Following from that, the focus groups showed that if some populations do not fully comprehend the degree of life-threatening violence that endangers these children, they are less likely to accept and support the need for policies that offer aid.

Improving the American public’s confidence that the situation is manageable will increase support for policies that assist these children. Focus group studies found that voters have naturally increased their belief that people are “flooding” over the border and that the situation is growing increasingly chaotic in response to current media coverage.3 In reality, the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border represents only one tenth of one percent of all refugees worldwide.

Advocates calling for a humanitarian approach to the issue need to  emphasize, according to the research, that there are solutions and a system in place to deal with the children immediately as well as over the long term. In the short term, placing the children with hosts in the U.S. is popular with the American public. Seven-out-of-ten Americans agree that while the children are awaiting their immigration hearings, they should be released into the care of relatives, host families, or churches, rather than be detained by immigration authorities. However, a majority of the public (59%) is concerned that if we allow the unaccompanied children to stay in the country it will encourage others to ignore our laws and increase illegal immigration. It is important for advocates to reiterate the fact that there are rules and an orderly process in place that gives every child a fair chance to tell his or her story while they are looked after by family and other sponsors ready to welcome them.

Notes

1. Public Opinion Research Institute (July 2014) July Religion and Politics Tracking Survey.

2. Belden Russonello Strategists, LLC. (August 2014) Findings from focus group regarding unaccompanied children from Central America.

3. Lake Research Partners. (August 2014) Unaccompanied immigrant children focus group research.

​

The Opportunity Survey

Understanding the Roots of Attitudes on Inequality Research

Opportunity is a deeply held value at the core of the American ethos. The belief that our nation can and should be a place where everyone has a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential is widely shared. But many believe the ideal of opportunity is in jeopardy and are willing to take steps to defend it.

In 2014, The Opportunity Agenda commissioned a groundbreaking nationwide survey to examine what the U.S. public thinks about opportunity in America and to measure public support for policies that expand opportunity across a range of issues, including jobs, education, criminal justice reform, immigration, and housing. Additionally, the research sought to gain a deeper understanding of the multiple factors that influence attitudes on inequality, contribute to an individual’s worldview, and predict people’s willingness to take action on issues they care about. Together, the survey’s findings offer critical insights for social justice leaders and organizations seeking to move hearts, minds, and policy.

Download Report

Talking About Unaccompanied Refugee Children Fleeing Harm

When entering or starting conversations about unaccompanied children coming to the United States to flee harmful situations, it’s important to keep a few key communications principles in mind. We’ve put together this brief messaging guidance based on both communications research and experience talking about more general immigration issues. Additionally, we have drawn on the expertise of a wide array of partners and experts in the field.1

In July 2014, several groups completed research examining public views on this issue. The following advice has been updated to reflect these findings, as noted below. Differences in audience and methodology account for some differences in findings and recommendations. This memo is largely geared toward progressive-­‐leaning audiences, and we have used the research to guide our thinking accordingly. We have noted differences and made recommendations based on audience and larger strategy considerations.

  • The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) completed a survey with voters. See the full study here.
  • Belden Rusonello Strategists (BRS) completed a series of focus groups with moderate to liberal non-­‐Hispanic voters.3
  • Hattaway Communications (Hattaway) developed a messaging document based on the BRS research.4
  • Lake Research Partners (LRP) conducted focus groups with non-­‐Hispanic swing voters.5

Audience

Thinking strategically, we need to identify and target key audiences.  Two important audiences in this case are those who are with us but aren’t sure how to talk about the issue, and sympathetic but uniformed progressive audiences who need to know how and why they should support the solutions we are suggesting.

To deliver a consistent, well-­‐framed message to these audiences, we recommend organizing communications with a Value, Problem, Solution, and Action structure.

Values

Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to unfamiliar arguments when they are framed by shared values. If we present only a litany of facts and rhetoric that conflict, or appear to conflict, with an audience’s core values, they will often disregard the facts. What’s more, many audiences are less familiar with the details of controversies and policies than we are, which means we can quickly lose them. It is therefore important to connect arguments to universal values that we all care about.

  • Leading with values like community, caring, compassion, and the American “can-­‐do” spirit―or pragmatism― is critical in these conversations. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel proud of our country’s capacity for compassion and care for children. We need to inspire in them hope for these children’s futures, and assure them that this problem has a solution that will uphold our values and do right for the children affected.
  • All of the new research underscores compassion as a leading value.
    • Hattaway suggests making sure that this value is used to elicit both sympathy and empathy by asking people how they would want their own children to be treated in a similar situation. Most Americans believe that children are coming here because their families are trying to keep them safe (PRRI).
    • Stress a special commitment (which people see as coming from within) vs. responsibility or obligation (which people see as being forced on them) to these children (LRP).
  • Remind audiences that this story is largely about children. Recent turns in the conversation have moved away from this focus toward descriptions of a “surge” in undocumented immigrants in general. However, unaccompanied children require a special level of care and resources; we need to keep those solutions front and center during this media moment.
  • Tone matters. We want to inspire compassion, caring, and the notion that we have it in our power to help these children in a way that aligns with our values.  Angry and alarmist tones are more likely to inspire fear and anger, which lead to feelings about protecting oneself and one’s family, not thinking outwardly.
  • Describing the children and their families.
    • Both LRP and BRS recommend referring to those fleeing simply as “children” as that seemed to elicit the most sympathetic response.
    • It’s helpful to tell audiences that a sizeable number of these children go to live with their families here. (BRS tested 80%, LRP used 60%, both numbers made audiences feel better about the situation. In addition, Most Americans (71%) believe the children should be released to a relative’s care while their cases are being decided (PRRI).
    • Most voters see the children as refugees agree that they should be treated as such and allowed to stay in the U.S. (69%, PRRI).
    • This belief holds across religious affiliations and across party lines, although Republicans are the most divided.  Younger Americans (18-­‐29) agree that the children be treated as refugees, while older Americans (65+) are divided about whether they should be treated as refugees or deported immediately (PRRI).
    • Hattaway suggests describing families as a haven from danger, rather than talking in the more sterile terms of “family reunification.”
    • LRP found negative connotations to the word “teenager,” particularly among white men expressed worry that teenagers would fall into gang violence here in the U.S.  LRP recommends focusing on our need to protect children instead.

Problem

Frame problems as threats to our shared values. This is the place to highlight stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with our target audiences. Where possible, include the cause of the problem, as well as who is responsible for fixing it.

  • While there are many problems in this story―broken and outdated immigration laws, problematic trade policies, violence and poverty in Central America to name just a few―it’s important to center on one or two per message. Overwhelming audiences with problems is unlikely to motivate them to work for or support solutions, but instead runs the risk of causing them to feel frustrated and tempted to ignore the entire conversation.
  • Talking about why children come here.
    • We can leverage the belief that parents are trying to protect their children by emphasizing the notion of caring, compassion, and family. Ask audiences what they would do if their children faced harm. We should emphasize the universal nature of compassion and care for children.
    • Remind people that these children are running to the border for safety, not trying to sneak across it (LRP).
    • Most Americans believe that children are coming here because their families are trying to keep them safe. A minority believe that these families are trying to take advantage of loopholes in our immigration laws (PRRI).
  • Audiences are more divided about the root causes of the situation.
    • Most importantly, we need to avoid complexity and make it clear that this problem is solvable (Hattaway).
    • These findings suggest that we are better off focusing on how we should treat the children, which seems to bring people to a more humanitarian solution, and less on explaining the overall root causes or descriptions of process.
    • Most believe that the children are coming here due to violence (45%) or to pursue better economic and education opportunities (34%). A slight majority believe that letting the children stay here will encourage others to come and ignore our immigration laws (PRRI).
    • One of the central problems in this discourse is the fact that as a country we are letting our worst instincts overwhelm our values of compassion and fairness. We know we have a special obligation to children and to human rights, one that our flawed laws are ignoring and violating. We need to realign our priorities and make sure we’re doing the right thing.
    • Avoid painting a picture of crisis. While the current situation can accurately be described as a humanitarian crisis, doing so risks inspiring fear and worry in even sympathetic audiences. We need people to be in a compassionate frame of mind and to recognize the responsibility we have toward unaccompanied children. We don’t want them in a closed-­‐off mindset that associates these children only with crisis and violence. We suggest language such as “children fleeing harm” rather than “violence,” for instance.
  • Regarding the word “crisis.”
    • Most Americans do not view the current situation as a crisis (62%, PRRI).
    • We suggest the term “serious situation,” which reflects over 40 percent of Americans’ understanding of the situation. A smaller group, around 20 percent, see the situation as a minor problem (PRRI).
    • Focus groups were comfortable with the word “crisis,” but did not use it themselves (BRS). They do see the border as out of control, though, and a crisis frame will underscore those feelings of helplessness and fear. We need to use terms that indicate that we know how to address this situation quickly and fairly.
    • NOTE: LRP recommends using the crisis frame for swing voters as it seems to produce a sense of urgency with them. We suggest you are careful about knowing exactly who you are talking to and why if you choose to use this frame for the reasons described above.
  • Tell your story, not the opposition’s. It can be tempting to refute all of the incorrect information that the opposition presents as facts and we often do this in the form of “mythbusting.” However, research reveals that doing so risks only strengthening those arguments because in order to refute the information, we usually end up repeating it. A better approach is to state the truth affirmatively without giving more airtime to incorrect or misleading information.

Solutions

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?

  • Balance background stories and causes with solutions. Of course we should fill in some of the blanks and talk about why these children are moving to safer environments. But focusing too much on the violence and crisis will not lead sympathetic audiences to the state of mind we need them to be in to support the solutions we want.
  • Narrow solutions. It’s important to include examples of solutions that are both credible and doable. But we should also be careful not to overwhelm our audiences. The goal is to get them in the right frame of mind, not to educate them completely on all aspects of the situation. We need public support for the policies that will make this right, and we need to inspire people quickly to be on the right side of the debate.
  • Addressing the situation.
    • A majority of Americans believe that the children should be provided care until it can be determined whether or not they should stay in the country (PRRI).
    • Audiences responded favorably to the term “orderly process” to describe how we should work with these child refugees (PRRI).
    • However, Hattaway suggests focusing on how we treat the children over the processes we use to address their situation (substance over process). Avoid terms like “due process,” which can make the children sound like criminals on trial, and instead focus on the need for the children to have an opportunity to tell their story before they are returned to harm’s way (BRS). Then focus on how we should be treating children in the meantime.
    • That said, both LRP and BRS found that audiences needed to hear about a fair and orderly process to assuage their worries that the U.S. simply cannot handle this number of children.  LRP suggests using the word “fast” as well.
    • We need to talk in calm terms about 1) How we should treat children and 2) children having an opportunity to tell their story and 3) a fair and orderly process to determine who should stay here.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
    • Be careful when talking about comprehensive immigration reform. This is a humanitarian situation that requires different solutions than those relating to our immigration system.
    • Hattaway recommends staying away from the immigration reform frame, while LRP found that swing voters appreciated reform as a solution.  The main takeaway is that we must assure audiences that there is a fair solution that aligns with our values.

Action

Assign an action. What can a specific target audience do? Try to give them something concrete that they can even picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. How else can they show support for these children?

Messaging Examples from Recent Discourse: NEW

It bears remembering they’re children and they’re alone. I think we are the kind of country, and the kind of Commonwealth, who can step up.

– Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts

I keep wondering if those families were thinking about the great kindness that Americans are known for. Despite all that America may have done wrong, this is still a country that the world looks to for compassion and rescue. I wonder if those parents thought American hearts would be touched so deeply that there would be a great outcry when their children’s stories were heard.

– Christine Wicker, Dallas Morning News

This situation demands we act in accordance with our best values of compassion, and humanity. Nebraskans are good people and good neighbors who value peace and protection for vulnerable children who have fled terrible violence. Lashing out against these children violates our integrity as a nation and as people of faith: ‘… show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-­‐10.).

The solution does not lie in punishing the children. We must welcome our brothers and sisters seeking safety and ensure they receive the proper screening, protection, and legal counsel that our laws demand as well as the peaceful protections commanded by our faith.

– Nebraska Faith Leaders Statement, Nebraska Appleseed

Notes:

1. In drafting this document, we have drawn from and are grateful for the advice and example of America’s Voice, the Center for American Progress, the National Immigration Forum, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, and ASO Communications.

2. Public Opinion Research Institute (July 2014) July Religion and Politics Tracking Survey.

3. Belden Rsuonnelo Strategists, LLC. (August 2014) Findings from focus group regarding unaccompanied children from Central America.

4.  Hattaway Communications. (August  2014)  Message  Landscape: Child Refugees.

5. Lake Research Partners. (August 2014) Unaccompanied immigrant children focus group research.

Talking Immigration Issues Today: A Shared Narrative

A narrative is a set of broad themes and values that help to connect with persuadable audiences and build support for change. Anti-­immigrant spokespeople have a clear narrative with two main elements: law and order and the overwhelming of scarce resources. Over the years, pro-­ immigration advocates and communications experts have developed and pushed out a pro‐immigrant narrative designed to move hearts, minds, and policy. This narrative is organized around three separate, but complementary themes: a Commonsense Approach; Upholding our Nation’s Values; and Moving Us Forward Together.

Each pillar can be used to both critique new and existing bad policies and, just as important, to promote positive approaches. The narrative as a whole works to remind people that immigration is part of who we are as a nation and that we cannot allow extremists to prey on our insecurities and fears to enact policies that ultimately hurt our communities and violate our most basic values.

Upholding Our Values

A Commonsense Approach

Move Forward Together
This pillar serves a number of purposes. It inspires audiences to see beyond political rhetoric and think about the kind of country we can be. Also, we know that some persuadable audiences have concerns about new immigrants desires to become “American.” We can use this pillar to reassure them that at a values level, most of us are very much alike, while also taking the opportunity to define what “American” means in our own terms. This pillar answers audiences’ desire to hear that we are not just pointing out what won’t work, but also have a positive vision for the country, and a way to get there. By moving from talking about “solutions” to “approaches,” we emphasize that immigration itself is not the problem, but rather flawed immigration policies. And we, as a democracy, have the power and responsibility to change those to make sure they are reasonable and fair. This pillar emphasizes community – both local and national. It emphasizes our shared interests and discredits “us vs. them” distinctions. It is also an opportunity to highlight our cultural, economic, and historical connections and contributions to each other. Because we’re all connected, those contributions are important to us all. Conversely, because we’re all connected, bad policies hurt us all – threatening our values and disrupting our communities.

Upholding Our Values

We have shared national values that should inform all of our policies:

  • Fairness and opportunity for all.
  • Equal treatment
  • Freedom from discrimination
  • American due process
  • Basic rights/human rights

We (native-­‐born and immigrant Americans alike) share common values that important to us personally:

  • Family
  • Economic security
  • Opportunity
  • Work ethic

Our values make us Americans, not just our papers. Our policies need to align with these values and make it possible for everyone to contribute and participate.

Our policies should reflect our core values: equality, fairness, accountability, opportunity. Aligning our policies to our values is crucial, particularly when times are tough, if those values are to survive and prosper into our children’s future.

A Commonsense Approach

We need policies that are:

  • Workable, Reasoned, Fair, Commonsense
  • Allow everyone to contribute
  • Acknowledge reality
  • Create a reasonable immigration process for aspiring citizens
  • Support communities

What we don’t need right now:

  • Anti-­‐immigration legislation that distracts from our real goals
  • Rash, unreasoned approaches
  • Policies that exclude and divide
  • Rash laws with unintended consequences
  • A patchwork of 50+ state policies

Immigration is an ongoing American experience. Immigrant Americans have always worked with other Americans to solve the problems we face together. Including and supporting them through commonsense policies will only strengthen us in the end. Other approaches are distractions at best – divisive, mean-­‐spirited, and even racist, at worst.

Our current immigration policies just don’t work. In a democracy, we have the power and responsibility to fix flawed policies.

Move Forward Together

We are all connected:

  • Immigrant Americans and native-­‐born Americans alike
  • We are all part of the solution
  • We all want to participate and contribute
  • Immigrant women are more than mothers, but also earners, workers and leaders in families and communities
  • We don’t want policies that exclude people and divide us

We move toward the future together.

  • We need policies that promote contribution and participation
  • We want to be poised for the 21st Century economy
  • We should encourage talent and innovation

Native-­‐born and immigrant Americans alike have contributed to our nation’s history, culture and economy. We need to ensure that our immigration policies make such contributions possible. We are stronger when we tackle our challenges together.

We need laws that promote public safety and uphold due process and equal justice and that integrate new Americans into our economic engine and social fabric. States must reject
The Opportunity Agenda
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
close search