Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Tag: immigration

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

Talking Immigration Issues Today: Due Process and Basic Rights

Upholding Our Values A Commonsense Approach Moving Forward Together
Most audiences believe that protecting basic rights like due process in the legal system are central to preserving and upholding American values of security, fair treatment, and freedom from government persecution. This embrace of due process as integral to our nation’s identity is an opportunity to tell a story of American values in peril, and to make the case for how to protect and restore them through a commonsense approach to our immigration policies. Most voters want enforcement that both  upholds our values (protecting due process,
rejecting racial profiling, ensuring a border free of human rights violations) and is practical. While cuts are made in military and education budgets, Americans do not favor costly increases in enforcement and border security. In addition, many respond to the argument that focusing on federal policy reform will alleviate many of the pressures that the border currently faces.		 We should emphasize our shared interests and discredit “us vs. them” distinctions, and talk about how protecting basic rights is part of our American identity and matters to us all. Because we’re all connected, bad policies hurt us all – threatening our values and disrupting our communities.
Due process is a human right central to the American justice system. American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the right to due process.

Due process – access to courts and lawyers and a basic set of rules for how we’re all treated in the justice system – is a human right and central to our country’s values. We should reject any policies that deny due process for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that America stands for.

America is a nation of values, founded on an idea: that all men and women are created equal. We hold these truths to be self-­‐evident: that all people have rights, no matter what they look like or where they came from. So how we treat new immigrants reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans. We need a commonsense immigration process, one that includes a roadmap for people who aspire to be citizens.

When it comes to our outdated immigration laws, we need real solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Current laws are badly broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing them. Tell Congress it’s possible-­‐-­‐and imperative-­‐-­‐to both modernize our immigration laws and protect our core values at the same time.

 America deserves a commonsense immigration process that creates a roadmap to citizenship for 11 million new Americans who aspire to be citizens. Legislation must also keep families together here in this country, protect all workers, and honor and preserve our longstanding constitutional promise of equal treatment for all.

The roadmap to citizenship must not be so expensive and onerous that it leaves millions in limbo for lengthy periods of time, subject to an ever moving metric of “border security.” We need a fair system that creates a reasonable immigration process for New Americans.

A roadmap to citizenship is imperative, but must not be done at the expense of border communities, who have endured years of border security “enhancements,” including more agents, drones, military presence and walls.

We need commonsense immigration policies, not an escalation of border militarization, more detention and arrests, and policies that promote racial profiling – a harmful and ineffective practice based on stereotypes. We need border security that involves and enlists border communities in providing for safe borders in ways that respect their human rights and constitutional rights and treat everyone fairly.

For too long, our immigration policies have moved into the realm of criminalization – needlessly imprisoning people in the for-­‐profit prison industry. We need to step back and think about what our immigration policies should do for us: create a reasonable process for immigrants to come here, keep families together, and respect human rights.

 We are a country that values due process, fair treatment under the law, and a commonsense approach to the issues facing our communities. Our immigration policies must reflect those values. If we allow anyone’s due process rights to be violated, if we detain anyone indefinitely and without representation, if we give into rash, unworkable policies – we all lose.

We are all better off when our communities are healthy and strong, we feel safe, and our children can thrive. As women and mothers, we know the importance of working to build strong communities and families, and being good neighbors who help each other. As Americans, we all do our part to contribute, and we’re all the better for having hardworking new immigrants as members of our communities [by being customers in our stores, giving to local churches and charities, and participating as parents in our schools]. That’s why we need an immigration process that strengthens, not divides, our communities.

We need our immigration policies to uphold our values and move us forward together. When they result in splitting up families, imprisoning people, deporting those who have lived here for years and are part of the fabric of our communities, they are not serving any of us. We live in a democracy. That means we have the power and responsibility to change laws that don’t work.

As Americans, we’re all in it together, and we’re stronger when we focus on what unites us rather than our differences. Our immigration policies must reflect those values. That’s why any immigration proposal should insist on fair rules for all American workers and families, and include a roadmap to citizenship for aspiring citizens who want to share in the American Dream.

Immigration Policy Solutions: Due Process and Fair Treatment Under the Law

​

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 policies. We also need to paint a picture of what the country would look like with workable, commonsense policies in place. This document identifies solutions across a spectrum of issues relating to immigrants and immigration, reflecting the importance of addressing the problems with our immigration policies as broadly as possible.

Topline Message:

Americans understand that the right to due process under the law is a cornerstone of our commitment to freedom and fairness. Ensuring that every person in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, is guaranteed equal treatment and due process means that an individual should be able to appeal an unfair administrative decision and to receive the same treatment under both immigration and criminal laws. It also means that the police can only stop a person based on evidence or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, not racial or ethnic stereotypes.

Solutions:

Restore judicial discretion and review

What DHS should do:

  • Restore Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which enabled certain permanent residents who had been convicted of a crime to avoid removal, to provide for discretionary relief in removal proceedings.
  • Create a right to counsel in all stages of any immigration proceedings.

What state and federal courts should do:

  • Ensure the right of individuals in proceedings to present evidence of their contributions to their community and their ties to this country and the right to have a translator present.
  • Apply the Padilla decision more broadly in post-conviction proceedings to ensure the right to competent counsel. (In Padilla, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a right to advice from counsel about the potential immigration consequences of their convictions and that failure to provide such advice may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.)
  • Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chaidez that Padilla does not apply retroactively to those convicted prior to March 31, 2010, state courts can and should apply their own state constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel or broader retroactivity principles to grant relief.

Apply the concept of due process to detention

What Congress should do:

  • Restore the federal courts’ authority to review removal orders and other administrative actions.
  • Eliminate mandatory detention for immigrants with a criminal conviction

What DHS should do:

  • Limit the issuance of ICE detainers and the transfer of detainees.
  • Improve conditions and end abuses at detention centers.

What DOJ should do:

  • Implement humane practices in detention by explicitly applying implementation of the regulations issued under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 to immigration detention facilities.

Resolve the inconsistency between the definitions of “conviction” and “aggravated felony” under immigration law and criminal law definitions

What Congress should do:

  • Change the definitions of “conviction” and “aggravated felony” in the immigration law to be consistent with current federal and state criminal laws.

End racial profiling

What Congress should do:

  • Enact the End Racial Profiling Act, which would ban profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, and gender at the federal, state, and local levels.
  • Eliminate DHS programs that result in racial profiling, e.g., “Secure Communities,” 287(g), and the Criminal Alien Program.

Talking Points:

  • In this country, we believe that everyone has rights, regardless of what you look like or where you come from. Central to these rights in our justice system is due process—a day in court, access to lawyers. When we allow some states or law enforcement policies to deny due process to anyone here, we allow them to threaten our core values.
  • Our justice system doesn’t work unless we treat everyone equally, providing due process. When we restrict anyone’s rights, it hurts us all because that’s not the kind of country we want to be.

​

Coverage of Arizona v. United States, a Challenge to the Constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070

What follows is an analysis of mainstream newspaper coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court argument in Arizona v. United States, a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s anti-immigrant “show me your papers” law, SB 1070. The analysis identifies major trends in the framing, narrative, opinion, quotations, and facts used by media outlets in journalistic reporting and commentary surrounding the case. Designed for pro-immigrant advocates, policymakers, and other spokespeople, it is intended to identify openings and challenges for media engagement and persuasive communications about the case.

Methodology:

The Opportunity Agenda staff conducted a scan, using the LexisNexis database, of national and regional daily newspaper coverage i during the week before and the week after the Supreme Court oral argument in Arizona v. United States, which took place on April 25, 2012. The scan produced 167 stories, from which we randomly selected 40 for full close review.

Main Themes and Narratives

The main themes that we identified are as follows:

  • The stories define the case as about the “show me your papers” provision, Section 2(B), and they often call it just that. They mention the provisions criminalizing failure to carry “alien registration document[s]” (Section 3) and seeking work without authorization (Section 5(C)), but these are depicted as secondary provisions. Very few stories discuss Section 6, which allows warrantless arrests when an officer has “probable cause” to believe that a person has committed a crime that makes that person removable from the United States. This division of emphasis roughly mirrors the time spent discussing these provisions during the oral argument.
  • The coverage overwhelmingly predicts, based on the argument, that the Court will uphold the show me your papers provision, while striking down the criminalization provisions. They describe this predicted “mixed decision” as a victory for anti-immigrant advocates, who have been mostly unsuccessful in the lower courts.
  • The reporting largely failed to note that the Court’s ruling in this case—most likely at the end of June—will not be the last word on SB 1070’s constitutionality. There are Equal Protection challenges to the law pending. And if any aspect of it goes into effect, there will quickly be “as applied” challenges to the way in which it is being implemented.  These details were lost in the coverage of this case.
  • Editorials on the law and oral argument overwhelmingly oppose SB 1070, and urge the Court to overturn it. This includes the Arizona Republic. A small number of editorials support the law, and at least one argues that the Obama campaign will benefit politically (i.e., gain more Latino voters) if the law is upheld.
  • The specter of racial profiling has a prominent role in coverage—while recognizing that the Supreme Court case does not address that issue. The possibility that the “papers” provision will result in racial profiling pervades the coverage, with people arguing both sides.
  • There are, however, very few instances of “real life” racial profiling reported in this coverage. The exceptions are scattered quotes of Latino citizens who say they were stopped under the law.
  • Although the case is about the extent to which states can pass their own immigration laws, there is only modest discussion of this issue in the coverage. What exists is largely in the form of quotes about a patchwork of 50 state laws.  There was little or no mention of what 50 different immigration policies would mean in practice.
  • There is universal consensus in the stories that the federal government has failed to fulfill its responsibility to fix a broken immigration system. Comprehensive immigration reform—by various names—is the alternative that the stories identify, and some stories note that a pathway to citizenship is as popular with Americans as SB 1070- style laws.
  • There are frequent references to President Obama’s aggressive deportation strategy, and the large numbers of immigrants deported by his administration.
  • There is an overwhelming theme of divisiveness and rancor in the debate over SB 1070 and immigration laws generally. The debate is portrayed as ugly, polarizing, and politicized.  There is frequent reference to the notion that federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would rather play politics on this issue than address it effectively.
  • There is an assumption that the expected ruling (upholding the “papers” provision) will encourage copycats. But there are also frequent statements that enthusiasm for these laws has cooled considerably, even in the states that adopted them—for a combination of agricultural/business, boycott, migration, and political reasons. There are multiple references to the failure of legislation in Mississippi, to the recall of Russell Pearce, and to efforts to moderate the state laws that were recently passed.
  • A number of stories note the importance of Latino voters, their concerns about immigration and an anti-immigrant political environment, Romney’s efforts to rebuild Latino support after an extremist primary process, and President Obama using the immigration issue to try to solidify his advantage in Latino support.
  • There is significant coverage of the fact that net immigration from Mexico to the U.S. is near zero, and this  isoften described as giving America “breathing room” for more rational policymaking—along with frequent skepticism that reform will occur. The recent Pew study on immigration numbers generated most of this coverage.
  • Alternatives to the term “illegal immigrant” are emerging—primarily “undocumented,” and occasionally “unauthorized.” While “illegal immigrant” is still the predominant term, and at least one paper used the term “illegals,” there is much more variation than in past coverage.
  • The phrase “attrition through enforcement” is repeated again and again by friend and foe alike, and is framed as a viable, if controversial, strategy.  “Self-deportation” appears occasionally, and more derisively.
  • There was no mention of the fact that an adverse ruling—upholding one or more parts of SB 1070—could also create new room for pro-immigrant laws by some states or localities.
  • Nor was there meaningful discussion of immigrant integration policies, or of alternatives like wage and hour enforcement or due process protections.

Sources and Quotes:

The coverage quoted a wide range of individuals, with the Supreme Court Justices (particularly Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, and Breyer) and oralists (Clement and Verrilli) among the only people quoted multiple times.

  • After the Justices and attorneys, the most frequently quoted categories were, in descending order, federal lawmakers, pro-immigrant advocates, state policymakers, and researchers. Anti-immigrant advocates were a tiny fraction of those quoted in our sample, and they were dwarfed by pro-immigrant advocates, among others. There were also very few business leaders quoted (those who were opposed the law), few law enforcement officials (those who supported the law), and few or no identified faith leaders.
  • With the exception of a small number of Dreamers, virtually no undocumented immigrants, and few immigrants generally, were quoted in the coverage.
  • Pro-immigrant advocates were prominent and “on message.” In terms of content, the quoted advocates (along with President Obama) were most likely to invoke values, challenge racial profiling, and connect SB 1070 to the rights and interests of all Americans.  Federal lawmakers mostly engaged in rather cynical political discourse about Latino voters and poll numbers. State officials mostly debated the merits of the law. Researchers discussed demographic changes and political implications. The few anti-immigrant leaders (from the group FAIR), who were quoted mostly focused on states’ rights arguments and invasion metaphors.

Implications and Recommendations:

Many aspects of the coverage offer significant opportunities. These include the broad opposition to SB 1070 by editorial boards, the prominence of racial profiling concerns, the sense that enthusiasm for anti-immigrant laws is fading for economic and political reasons, the near consensus in the reporting that some form of national immigration reform is needed, the warning that Latino voters will punish anti-immigrant politicians, and the dominance and persuasive messaging of pro-immigrant advocates. The gradual move away from the term “illegal” is also encouraging. These advantages should be reinforced in pro-immigrant movement communications and engagement with media outlets.

The continuing challenges that exist point to several recommendations for pro-immigrant advocates and allies:

  • Raising the visibility and voice of immigrant, business, faith and law enforcement voices, explaining from their unique perspectives why SB 1070-style laws are bad for America, and promoting positive alternatives. There seems to be a particular opening for op-eds, which were largely absent in our scan.
  • Highlighting concrete examples of racial profiling due to these laws, and the human stories behind them. Media and opinion research suggest public concern about profiling exists, but competes with skepticism and doubts that it is actually occurring.
  • Providing reporters and other audiences with greater detail and examples of the chaos and confusion that could result from 50 different immigration laws. Paradoxically, it may also be beneficial to begin talking about pro- immigrant laws that forward-looking states and municipalities could pass if the Court says that they have greater latitude.
  • Highlighting positive and proactive policies that integrate immigrants into our social fabric and economic engine, and that address real issues like job creation, living wages, public safety, and social services. Pointing to places like California, Connecticut, and New Mexico that are using these approaches successfully can help to concretize them in the minds of reporters and public audiences.
  • Communicating to reporters and public audiences that, whatever the outcome of Arizona v. United States, there will almost certainly be subsequent Equal Protection and “as applied” challenges to the implementation of whatever aspects of the law survive.

Finally, given the complexity of this case, and the multiple provisions at issue, it will be important to develop advanced messaging for each of the half dozen or so possible outcomes. Anti-immigrant advocates are likely to declare victory under almost any of the likely scenarios. Immigrant supporters should be ready to tell their story, adapted to the specifics of the decision.

Notes:

i Using the terms “Arizona” and “supreme court” and “immigrant”/”immigration,” the scan identified articles, editorials, and op-eds in English language newspapers published in the United States that are listed in the top 50 in circulation in Editor & Publisher Year Book:

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Chicago Sun-Times

Chicago Tribune

Daily News (New York)

Detroit Free Press

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Journal of Commerce

Los Angeles Times

Miami Herald

Newsday (New York, NY)

Orlando Sentinel

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sacramento Bee

San Antonio Express-News

San Diego Union-Tribune

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Star Tribune (Minneapolis MN)

Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)

Tampa Bay Times

The Arizona Republic (Phoenix)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Baltimore Sun

The Boston Globe

The Boston Herald

The Buffalo News

The Charlotte Observer

The Christian Science Monitor

The Cincinnati Enquirer (Ohio)

The Columbus Dispatch

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky)

The Daily News Journal,

Murfreesboro, TN

The Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK)

The Dallas Morning News

The Denver Post

The Detroit News (Michigan)

The Hartford Courant

The Houston Chronicle

The Indianapolis Star (Indiana)

The Kansas City Star

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The New York Post

The New York Times

The Orange County Register

The Oregonian

The Philadelphia Daily News (PA)

The Philadelphia Inquirer

The Plain Dealer

The San Francisco Chronicle

The Seattle Times

The Tampa Tribune

The Washington Post

Times-Picayune (New Orleans)

USA Today

In Play

Acknowledgements

This report was made possible in part by a grant from the Four Freedoms Fund at Public Interest Projects, Inc. Project support from Unbound Philanthropy, Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York also helped support this research and collateral communications materials. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

The research and writing of this report was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media with consultation from The Opportunity Agenda.

We would also like to thank the individuals who served on the Advisory Committee for this research.

Judith A. Browne- Davis, Advancement Project
Ellen Buchman, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Mariana Bustamante, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Leonie Campbell-Williams, Asian American Justice Center
Adela De La Torre, National Immigration Law Center
Norman Eng, New York Immigration Coalition
Alexandra Filindra, Taubman Center for Public Policy & American Institutions, Brown University
Louie Gilot, Border Network for Human Rights
Lucas Guttentag, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project
Margaret Huang, Rights Working Group
Benita Jain, Immigrant Defense Project
Angela Kelley, Center for American Progress
David Lubell, Welcoming America
Vivek Malhotra, ACLU National
Clarissa Martinez, National Council of La Raza
Meghan McDermott, Global Action Project
Shuya Ohno, National Immigration Forum
Shaady Salehi, Active Voice
Ellen Schneider, Active Voice
Catherine Tactaquin, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Sean Thomas-Breitfeld, Center for Community Change
Nadine Wahab, Rights Working Group
Eric K. Ward, Center for New Community

Executive Summary

Project Background

The Opportunity Agenda commissioned GfK to conduct an online survey of three important constituencies to evaluate support and messaging around comprehensive immigration reform and its elements. The survey was conducted among African-American Likely Voters (AAs), Hispanic Likely Voters, and White Progressive Likely Voters (WPs). For each group, about 300 interviews were conducted between February 22 and March 5, 2010. The survey covered the following subjects:

  • The current political climate for immigration reform, including its relative importance, the desire for immediate action, and the values people associate with immigration.
  • Support levels for the core narrative – “We need workable solutions that uphold our values and move us forward together” – as well as for a Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) proposal, from its most basic form (path to legal status) to several alternative detailed proposals.
  • Support for the possible elements of reform.
  • Testing messages the progressive community could likely use in the debate.
  • Head-to-Head testing of messages from the pro-reform and anti-reform sides of the debate.
  • Likelihood of taking actions to support reform and pro-reform candidates.
  • Demographics for balancing the sample and providing profiles of key attitudinal groups.

Key Findings

  • There is broad support across all groups for the core narrative focused on “workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values, and move us forward together.” Majorities of these consistencies (51% – 63%) support immigration reform, defined as a process for illegal immigrants already in the country to register and live here legally, before they hear anything about it.
  • There is also near-unanimity in the importance of welcoming immigrants into the social fabric.
  • While support for reform exists, urgency for reform does not. Most agree the system is broken, but immigration is a relatively lower priority issue in today’s climate. However, most (but not all, especially among WP) would like to see the issue addressed this year.
  • Across all three major demographic groups surveyed, “Law and Order” is the top value that likely voters seek embodied in immigration policy. Among AAs and WPs likely voters, “Respect for American Culture” is a strong second, followed by “Equality” and “Fairness.” Hispanic voters do have a somewhat different values profile than either African American or White Progressive voters, but they are by no means entirely dissimilar. Hispanics, too, rank “Law and order” first, with “Fairness,” “Opportunity,” and “Respect for American Culture” clustered together in the second tier.
  • The dominant values running through the persuadable block of voters centers on Law and Order and Respect for American Culture. However, Persuadables also react positively to messages that focus on basic rights, practical solutions, and attacks on big business. Avoiding attacks on enforcement, while addressing basic rights and the contributions (taxes paid) of undocumented workers will help maximize support for CIR.
  • Hispanic voters empathize more with immigrant aspirations for opportunity and family unification, but they, too, place “Law and Order” at the top of the list of values that immigrant policy should promote.
  • Public opinion toward CIR is highly elastic within these three groups. That is, the majority of likely voters polled is “in play” and can be attracted to and repelled from reform depending on what elements they understand any such proposal to contain. One-third of the sample favored reform each time they were asked about it, and just 6% did not favor reform (either opposed it, or were on the fence) each time they were asked about it.
  • CIR enjoys widespread support across the target groups, and support builds when CIR is defined by specific policies. The research indicates that policies are paramount, and there is wider latitude in the choice of messages used to win support for CIR.
  • In all three demographic groups, the three most popular elements of CIR are, in order, the requirements to: 1) pay taxes, 2) pass a criminal background check, and 3) register with the government.
  • Even with the fluidity in commitment to CIR, there is support for reform across each of the groups from the outset, and support grows and is largely sustained as the debate is put into more contexts. At the outset (Q4), AAs show the lowest support for reform (51%), and Hispanics the highest (63%). Within each of these three target groups, the overall pattern of opinion stability is remarkably similar (and will be explored in much more detail in the next section of this report).
  • The group of voters who resist supporting CIR includes some of the most progressive, as indicated by their much stronger emphasis on the need for immigration policy to promote opportunity.
  • Respondents defined as “persuadable” were drawn to support CIR with a number of harder-line policy elements, but their reactions to more progressive messages is also generally positive.
  • Across several message pairings that tested two messages head-to-head, pitting a progressive message against an anti- reform message, the progressive message prevails.
close search

Hot Topics: