Talking about Arizona’s S.B. 1070, an alarming and incredibly wrong-headed bill, provides immigration advocates with a chance to show the American public the dangerous consequences of anti-immigrant fervor. This is a prime opportunity to unite our voices around the three common themes of the core narrative that immigration advocates from around the country have developed and promoted: We need workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and move us forward together. We recommend the following:
Use the narrative. The more we use the same main themes when talking about immigration, the more we can start to control the larger story and drown out the divisive voices that have dominated the discourse for too long. To this end, we recommend that all messages be built around the narrative themes.
But tailor it to your audiences. Using common themes does not mean we need to use the same messages. We can tailor language, statistics, metaphors, etc. to best suit each of our audiences. But sticking to the same themes is important.
Messages about Upholding Our Nation’s Values can underscore the importance of fairness, justice, and equality, while talking about standing up for the kind of country we want to be.
Workable Solutions can be messaged by pointing out the impracticality of the bill, that it makes law enforcement’s jobs more difficult, and that it’s not the kind of solution we need.
Moving Us Forward Together is a reminder to tell audiences why the bill is bad for everyone, while also dividing communities.
Include positive solutions. This is an opportunity to talk about what does work, not just attack a policy that doesn’t.
Talking Point Examples
This law is impractical, violates our values, and divides our communities. We need real solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Our immigration system is broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing it. Congress needs to act now.
This law is racial profiling, pure and simple. And singling people out based only on stereotyping isn’t just wrong, it’s also bad policing. Our communities need Congress to focus on workable solutions that uphold our values, and move us all forward together. Fixing our immigration system the right way is about what kind of country we want to be. This law certainly illustrates what we don’t want to become.
The problems facing our communities are the result of a failed immigration system that only Congress can fix. Its inability to move forward on this issue will continue to result in wrongheaded, unworkable policies like this law, which is a dangerous distraction from the real work we need to do to pass comprehensive immigration reform that works for everyone.
Solutions, Values, All of Us: A Common Narrative Emerges on S.B. 1070
We’re not alone in describing this bill as unworkable, divisive, and a violation of American values.
Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes for example the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.
-President Barack Obama
I don’t think this is the proper approach … It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement, and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.
-Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. While AACOP recognizes immigration as a significant issue in Arizona, we remain strong in our belief that it is an issue most appropriately addressed at the federal level. AACOP strongly urges the U. S. Congress to immediately initiate the necessary steps to begin the process of comprehensively addressing the immigration issue to provide solutions that are fair, logical, and equitable.
-Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police Statement
Should this bill become law, working families across Arizona will suffer. America should be in the business of protecting communities and protecting working families, not destroying communities and ruining everyone’s well being.
-Eliseo Medina, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Our highest priority today is to bring calm and reasoning to discussions about our immigrant brothers and sisters. We are a nation of immigrants, and their commitment and skills have created the finest country in the world. Let’s not allow fearful and ill-informed rhetoric to shape public policy. Let’s put a human face on our immigrant friends, and let’s listen to their stories and their desires to improve their own lives and the good of the nation.
-Cardinal Roger Mahoney, Archbishop of Los Angeles
About S.B. 1070
The Arizona State legislature recently passed a bill entitled, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (S.B. 1070),1 which, among other provisions:
Requires police officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person whenever there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present and verify that status with the federal government;2
Gives police officers authority to conduct warrantless arrests of persons for whom the officer has probable cause to believe have committed any public offense that makes those persons deportable;3
Creates a private right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for failing to enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent possible;4
Requires employers to keep E-Verify records of employees’ eligibility;5
Establishes a separate state offense, with attendant criminal penalties, for any person to violate provisions of the federal immigration law regarding registration and carrying registration documents—making it a state crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant under federal law;6
Makes it a criminal offense to attempt to hire or pick up day laborers to work at a different location if the driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, for a worker to get into a car if it is impeding traffic, or for an undocumented immigrant to solicit work (by a gesture or nod) in any public place;7
Mandates the impoundment of any vehicle used to transport, move, conceal, harbor, or shield an undocumented immigrant;8 and
States that the remaining portions of the bill are severable and will remain in effect even if certain portions are held to be invalid.9
1. “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” Ariz. S.B. 1070 (2010).
2. Id. at 1, Sec. 2 § 11-1051(B).
3. Id. at 1, Sec. 2 § 11-1051(E).
4. Id. at 2, Sec. 2 § 11-1051(G).
5. Id. at 7, Sec. 6 § 23-212(I).
6. Id. at 2-3, Sec. 3 § 13-1509.
7. Id. at 5, Sec. 5 § 13-2928 (A)-(E).
8. Id. at 5, Sec. 5 § 13-2929 (B).
9. Id. at 16, Sec. 11(A).
Today’s Immigrants are Diverse and a Part of America’s Fabric
As of 2008, there were 39 million foreign-born people living in the United States, about 13% of the U.S. population.1
Of these 39 million immigrants, about 7 in 10 are naturalized citizens and lawfully residing non-citizens.2 There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States,3 who make up 4% of the U.S. population and 5.4% of the workforce.4
The top 10 countries that foreign-born people in the United States come from are, in descending order: Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, El Salvador and Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Canada, and the Dominican Republic.5
A growing percentage of migrants to the United States are women, due in large part to U.S. industries filling labor shortages in traditionally female occupations, the growth of human trafficking and servile marriage, and the displacement of women and children by armed conflict.6 For many women migrants, the primary way to get legal status is through joining their family members in the United States.7
Immigrants Provide Significant Contributions to the United States
People born in the United States gain an estimated $37 billion a year from the participation of immigrants in the U.S. economy;8 over their lifetimes, the average immigrant and her immediate descendants will contribute $80,000 more in taxes than they will receive in benefits.9
As of February 2008, more than 65,000 immigrants (noncitizens and naturalized citizens) were serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Services—this made up about 5% of all active duty personnel.10
After immigration, each generation of children achieves greater levels of educational attainment; among first generation parents, 38% have not graduated from high school, compared to only 10% of their second- generation children.11
Immigrants to America Often Face Unfair Barriers and Discrimination
There are more people who qualify for family-based visas than the limited number of visas available, so many close family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents must wait 7 to 10 years before being granted a visa and coming to the United States.12
Every year, thousands of immigrants are subject to “mandatory detention” with no right to a hearing before judge.13
Immigrant workers are often preyed upon by their employers and suffer from wage theft, workplace discrimination, or workplace injuries, with little to no recourse under the law.14
Legalization Would Bolster and Build the U.S. Economy
$1.5 trillion dollars could be added to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years by providing a process for undocumented immigrants to get legal status.15
In the first three years of a legalization program, the higher earning power of legalized workers would increase tax revenues from $4.5 to $5.4 billion dollars.16
These new immigrants with legal status generate increased consumer spending—enough to support 750,000-900,000 new jobs in the United States.17
A legalization program would raise the “wage floor” for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily-exploited, low-wage, and undocumented immigrants currently work.18
1. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Immigrants’ Health Coverage and Health Reform: Key Questions and Answers 2 (2009), available at http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7982.pdf (citing Capps, R., “Health-Care Access for US Immigrants,” National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, Migration Policy Institute, presentation at Grantmakers in Health Conference, New Orleans, March 19, 2009).
2. Id. at 2 (citing Passel, J. and D. Cohn, Pew Hispanic Center, “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States,” April 14, 2009).
3. MICHAEL HOEFER, NANCY RYTINA & BRYAN C. BAKER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ESTIMATES OF THE UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANT POPULATION RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES: JANUARY 2009 (2010), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf.
4. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, supra fn i, at 2.
5. U.S. Census Bureau News, Census Bureau Data Show Characteristics of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population, Press Release (Feb. 19, 2009), available at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/013308.html.
6. Immigration Policy Center, Immigrant Women in the United States: A Demographic Portrait 5-6 (2006), available at http://immigration.server263.com/images/File/specialreport/Immigrant%20Women%20(IPC%202006).pdf.
7. See id.
8. Drum Major Institute, Fact Sheet: Immigrants’ Economic Contributions (2009) (citing White House Council of Economic Advisors, Immigration’s Economic Impact (2007)), http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=104.
9. Id.
10. One America, Immigrants in the Military—Fact Sheet (2009), available at http://www.weareoneamerica.org/immigrants-military-fact-sheet. xi Public Policy Institute of California, Just the Facts: Immigrants and Education (2008), http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_ImmigrantsEducationJTF.pdf.
11. See Immigration Policy Center, Family Immigration: Repairing Our Broken Immigration System (2010), http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/family-immigration-repairing-our-broken-immigration-system.
13. Amnesty International USA, Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA (2009), available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/immigration-detention/immigrant-detention-report/page.do?id=1641033.
14. Kate Thomas, “Wake-up Call: Abuse of Hispanic Workers Will Continue Without Immigration Reform” (April 21, 2009), http://www.seiu.org/2009/04/wake-up-call-abuse-of-hispanics-workers-will-continue-without-immigration-reform.php.
15. Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, Center for American Progress & Immigration Policy Center, Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform 1 (2010), available at http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/raising-floor- american-workers.
This memo lays out recent research with African American audiences and offers ideas about talking with them about immigration reform. However, it should be noted that while there do exist some strategies for talking effectively to African American audiences in particular, the key strategy should be to stay with the overall Reform Immigration for America campaign narrative of workable solutions, values, and moving forward with urgency and leadership.
The research cited here consisted of eight focus groups in Seattle, Chicago, Richmond, and New York with African American, U.S.-born Latino, and progressive white audience conducted by Lake Research Partners. The groups occurred on May 11, 18, 20, and 21 respectively. This summary focuses on findings with African American voters.
African American Focus Groups Participants:
Were firmly in a problem and solution-oriented frame of mind;
Generally supported immigration reform, and – along with U.S. born Latino and progressive white voters – were not in a punitive mood and reject harsher aspects of any proposal;
Were motivated by values of Equality and Fairness:
Equality: No group or nationality of immigrants ought to be treated differently than any other.
Fairness: Both fairness to immigrants and fairness to American citizens. The system treat people fairly but should not allow immigrants to collect benefits or receive opportunities that citizens cannot get (which they believe to be happening).
Did not know much about the immigration system, laws, and specific problems, even those who are highly attentive and engaged;
Had little appetite for restrictionist or xenophobic rhetoric;
But did not perceive the existence of an extreme or ideological debate. Explicitly linking anti- immigrant voices to racist or other extreme groups will probably only work with very attentive or sophisticated audiences.
Drew clear distinctions between documented and undocumented immigrants;
Held largely favorable views of legal immigrants; had some concern that they get benefits African Americans do not.
Worried that undocumented immigrants were straining public systems, lowering wages, providing too much competition for jobs. Held strong beliefs that immigrants receive benefits African Americans do not.
Tended to believe that immigrants should learn English, but not necessarily that it be a requirement;
Recognized that undocumented workers are often exploited and almost universally considered employers to be more at fault than their undocumented workers.
Successful Messages
Overall:
When it comes to immigration, we need workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values, and move us forward together. We need to fix our system so that individuals who contribute and participate can live in the United States legally. That means creating a system where undocumented immigrants can register, get legal, learn English, and apply for citizenship.
Tailoring the Message for African American Audiences
Focusing only on wrongs to immigrants can sometimes draw resentment from African American audiences who feel that their communities continue to experience many of the same wrongs, but that no one cares.
African Americans see their story and place in America as unique and do not like the idea that messages might attempt to “piggyback” onto the Civil Rights movement.
Any message that singles out black people or treats them as somehow separate from other Americans is likely to be perceived as patronizing.
More successful among African Americans was a populist, anti-corporate message that pins the blame for the still broken system on the appetite of big business for cheap, easily controlled labor. (However, it should be noted that this message did poorly with college-educated white voters who saw it as un-Obama like. So it won’t work in instances where messages are meant for broader consumption)
It just doesn’t make sense that we could have an immigration system that’s been broken for so long when Americans want it fixed. One reason for this is that Big Business likes cheap labor that they can control. We need a system that protects workers from exploitation and allows us to all rise together. What we don’t need is those with only an eye on greed and profit dictating how the immigration system should work.
Messengers are key. The strongest messenger in support of comprehensive reform and immigrants in general is President Obama. To be consistent with language the president is likely to use, it will be best to avoid more confrontational language.
One of President Obama’s central messages has been that our policies must recognize that we’re all in it together, with common rights and responsibilities. As a candidate, Obama promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office because he understood that our broken immigration system does not reflect those American values. Now it’s time for us to stand with him against the forces of intolerance who would rather play politics with people’s lives than solve real problems.
It’s time to tell a new story about immigration in this country. Current dominant narratives do not reflect our country’s values, and are eroding public support for the kinds of policies our communities need. Meanwhile, negative discourse opens the door for dangerous and divisive proposals that serve no one beyond a narrow set of anti-immigrant activists. And while polls show these groups don’t represent the public’s views, they do tell a consistent, values-based story that has caught on in public discourse, popular culture, and political dialogue. We need to reclaim this conversation and infuse it with our solutions, our stories, and most importantly, our values.
This memo sets out the tools we need to begin to counter harmful anti-immigrant narratives. We propose a flexible, values-based framework that we can use to start a variety of conversations: We need workable solutions that uphold our values and help us move forward together. These conversations can then move to specific issues and solutions, to specific statistics, and to compelling individual stories. But we believe that the more we all start the conversation in roughly the same place and begin our own drumbeat of values, the stronger our collective message will be, and the easier each subsequent conversation will be to start.
General Messaging Guidelines
This values framework is based on recent public opinion research, insight from media monitoring and analysis, and the experience of a broad range of immigration advocates, activists and immigrant themselves. This intelligence suggests the following principles for communications on immigrants:
Emphasize Workable Solutions: Americans across the political spectrum agree that our immigration system needs fixing and that it’s unrealistic to deport 12 million people. Our communications should promote the kinds of solutions that provide for full economic and civic participation, and help our communities thrive. Anti-immigrant policies should be disparaged as reactionary policies that have been tried and failed to solve the problem.
Infuse Messages with Values: Americans are most likely support policies that welcome immigrants when they’re reminded of our national values of opportunity, community, equality, shared responsibility, and in some cases, human rights. “Transactional” arguments about immigrants paying more in taxes than they “take” in services just reinforce the anti-immigrant frame of newcomers as a potential burden.
Encourage Moving Forward Together: Anti-immigrant groups are actively working to drive a wedge between immigrants, African Americans, and low-wage workers. It’s important for us to convey our shared values and common interests (leading with values) as well as solutions that expand opportunity for everyone—e.g., combining an earned pathway to citizenship with enhanced civil rights enforcement, living wages, and job training for communities experiencing job insecurity.
Remind Audiences that Immigrants are a Part of Us: Instead of describing immigrants as outsiders who are good for us, we should remind audiences that immigrants are a part of us, and always have been. (Note that this is different from saying “we’re a nation of immigrants,” which is off-putting for many African American and Native American audiences).
Know the dominant narrative: Anti-immigrant spokespeople are consistent in using two dominant themes, regardless of their specific point.
Law and Order
“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?”
Threat of Terrorism
Ducking Taxes
Overwhelming Scarce Resources
Job Competition
Health Care Cost and Access
Draining Social Services
Building a Message
While our core narrative should remain the same and its themes should weave throughout all of our communications, we can build messages for different issues and audiences. One structure that communicators have found helpful is Value, Problem, Solution, and Action:
Value
History shows that we move forward as a country when we welcome new immigrants and concentrate our combined energies on solving the problems we all face, and improving our communities.
Problem
We are currently at a standstill on immigration policy. Immigrants want to be here legally; our current system just makes that almost impossible. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers are exploiting this system denying workers across the board equal rights and pay, and preventing the collection of important streams of tax revenue.
Solution
We need sensible immigration policies that recognize reality – immigrants are already contributing members of our communities. They are a crucial part of our economic engine and the social fabric of our society. They are part of the future of our country.
The obvious solution – and one that most Americans support – is to fix our immigration system so that everyone who lives here can contribute and participate fully and without fear.
Action
Support policies that help our communities welcome immigrants, and solve our problems together.
Talking Point Guidelines
The following bullets are examples of how to illuminate the shared narrative. It is understood, however, that the immigration movement has diverse audiences, various regional needs, and faces a variety of challenges. But we share many of the same values. We propose weaving the narrative through your messaging, and using it as a guide. This way, it will begin to shape a familiar story to the public that will benefit us all, without attempting to force advocates into repeating uncomfortable rhetoric that doesn’t work for them.
Workable Solutions
We need to emphasize that we are proposing reasonable and practical solutions that address our community’s and our nation’s real needs. Emphasizing workable solutions also allows us to paint the extreme anti-immigrant activists as promoting policies that only serve to divide, alienate, and punish while ignoring the real issues our communities face.
Unrealistic approaches like building walls at the border or treating immigrants so badly that they’ll somehow pick up and “go home” have been tried and failed.
Anti-immigrant extremists are preventing a legal immigration system that works and distracting us from addressing our real challenges on education, health care and employment.
Immigration Reform
We need a realistic pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who work, pay taxes, and learn English. Immigrants want to come to America legally, but our current system makes that almost impossible. And we can’t round up and deport 13 million people [and it would violate our values as a people to do so].
A workable pathway to citizenship and human rights for current and future immigrants is crucial to the interests of our country and, especially, to the interests of working Americans. If our government keeps people in the shadows, without rights or a shot at the American Dream, it will depress the wages and job prospects of all workers in this country. And it will continue to violate our values as a nation. But if we move those people into the economic mainstream, we can rise together.
Local Anti-Immigrant Policies
We’ve tried the policies of isolation and division, and they don’t work for anybody. We need workable, inclusive policies that serve our entire state, even as we push the federal government to fix our broken immigration system.
Due Process
In America the punishment should fit the crime. Not allowing judges to consider the circumstances of a case violates this principle and does not solve the problem of undocumented immigration. We need to allow judges to consider the circumstances of each individual case and decide what is best for that situation. When the government denies due process to anyone in this country, it threatens the freedom of all of us.
Uphold Our Values
Research shows that the public reacts positively to values-based messages, and is motivated to protect the values they consider central to our country and our history. We can tap into this pride, and this motivation by underscoring that all immigration policies must reflect our values of:
Community Equality Shared Responsibility
Opportunity Justice Human Rights
Immigrants are part of the fabric of our society—they are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. Reactionary policies that force them into the shadows haven’t worked, and are not consistent with our values. Those policies hurt all of us by encouraging exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords. We support policies that help immigrants contribute and participate fully in our society.
For generations, and today, America represents a promise of opportunity. We need to develop an immigration system that integrates immigrants who come here to work, pay taxes, and learn English.
Anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies are divisive and increasingly nasty; that’s not what we stand for as a country.
We must recognize the dignity and human rights of all people; preventing exploitation and upholding human rights is an important part of who we are as a people.
We must welcome the stranger among us.
Due Process
We need to uphold our respect for due process, a fair hearing, and access to a lawyer are core American principles that we have to uphold.
Raids
Militarized raids on families and workplaces, brutal detention facilities, the lack of due process — these raids are un-American and a national shame. The United States was founded to reject violence and repression, not repeat it.
Family Reunification
Some propose that we ignore family ties in our immigration system. But Americans agree that honoring family is a core value, and one of the values that we most respect in others. Welcoming newcomers but separating and splitting their families is contrary to who we are as a nation.
Help Us Move Forward Together
We need to emphasize community values, the idea that we are all in this together and we’re stronger when we realize this. Reminding people that the things that unite us are stronger than our differences puts them in a helpful frame of mind to consider immigration policies. It is important to underscore the notions of shared prosperity, economic and cultural contribution, and the fruits of combined efforts.
We are for solutions that benefit communities, strengthen our economy, and create a system that works for everyone.
We need shared solutions to improve health care, education, jobs, and the economy for everyone who lives here. Immigrants have a stake in those systems—we are caregivers and health professionals, teachers and students—and we are a part of the solution.
Generations of immigrants have come to America in search of opportunity and have contributed to our shared prosperity; preserving that tradition is essential to our future in an increasingly connected world.
Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are a part of our state’s economic engine, and, most importantly, a part of our communities.
Immigrants play a vital role in our communities, our culture and our economy. We go to church, we volunteer with the PTA, we pay taxes and work at hard jobs that our economy needs.
Our economy and our trade and immigration policies aren’t working for anyone but a select few. Instead of scapegoating immigrants and terrorizing families and communities, we should make America work for all of us.
Mix and Match
To create messages based on the narrative, we can determine which elements are the most effective to the point we need to make and then weave them in. It’s the cumulative effect of these messages that will ultimately create the narrative we need to start to put the immigration story back on track.
We need to move from our broken immigration system to one that is orderly, workable, and consistent with our nation’s values. We can do that by allowing immigrants who work, pay taxes, and learn English to earn a pathway to citizenship. Those steps, along with reforms like increased civil rights enforcement and sanctions for employers that exploit workers will raise wages and expand economic opportunity for everyone.
A pathway to citizenship and human rights for current and future immigrants is crucial to the interests of our country and, especially, to the interests of working Americans. If our government keeps people in the shadows, without rights or a shot at the American Dream, it will depress the wages and job prospects of all workers in this country. And it will continue to violate our values as a nation. But if we move those people into the economic mainstream, we can rise together.
A “Core 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 past year, pro-immigration advocates and communications experts have developed a pro-immigrant narrative designed to move hearts, minds, and policy.
The Pro-Immigration Narrative has three main elements: (1) Workable Solutions; (2) Upholding Our Nation’s Values; and (3) Moving Forward Together. Each element can be expressed in different ways and with different, but related, messages and arguments:
1.)Workable Solutions. Americans are hungry for solutions when it comes to immigration, and they understand that punitive, anti-immigrant approaches are not realistic or workable. We can win by showing ourselves to be voices of solutions and can-do pragmatism. Messages without solutions are easily dismissed.
We need to fix our broken immigration system, so people can get legal, contribute, and participate fully in American economy and society.
We’re not going to round up and deport 12 million undocumented men, women, and children, so let’s focus on realistic solutions like creating a way for people to get legal and cracking down on employers that exploit or underpay their workers.
Building border walls and raiding people’s homes and workplaces are just not realistic solutions. We need real solutions that will work to fix our broken system.
2.) Upholding Our Nation’s Values. The most prominent positive values behind the core narrative are fairness and accountability. Many progressive audiences also see freedom from exploitation as important. And many native-born Latinos and African Americans view equality as important, when it comes to how immigrants from different countries are treated.
We need a system that protects all workers from exploitation and depressed wages and allows us to all rise together.
Harsh policies that force people into the shadows are not consistent with our values. Some anti-immigrant forces want to ban undocumented immigrant families from renting apartments or sending their kids to school. These kinds of policies are unworkable and are not consistent with our values. We need to fix our system so that immigrants who came here to work, pay taxes, and learn English can become legal and contribute fully.
Due process and fair treatment in the justice system are basic human rights, and respecting them is a crucial part of who we are as a nation. There is a lot of evidence that immigrants – both documented and undocumented – are being denied due process in this country. If anyone is denied that basic human right, we are all at risk.
3.) Moving Forward Together. These messages tap most Americans’ views that immigrants work hard and are already contributing to the economy in some ways.
We need everyone’s contribution to get us out of the mess we’re in. To really fix the economy, we need to fix our immigration system to move towards eliminating the underground economy it perpetuates. By legalizing the undocumented workforce, we will bring these workers out of the shadows and put more workers and employers on our tax rolls.
We need policies that allow everyone who lives here to work and participate in our society.
The Narrative as a Message
Our research found that the core narrative itself can also be incorporated into messages. The following message was persuasive and popular across audiences. This message should be immediately followed by specific reform ideas.
When it comes to immigration, we need workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values, and move us forward together. We need to fix our system so that individuals who contribute and participate can live in the United States legally. That means creating a system where undocumented immigrants can register, get legal, learn English and contribute fully.
Urgency: The Core Narrative and Immigration Reform Now.
The time is right to press for immigration reform now, and fixing any part of the problem is viewed as progress. One message that did well in our research was:
Elected leaders have been talking about fixing our broken immigration system for over 20 years. It’s time they did something to actually fix it now, even if their first steps are not perfect. They should get started now working toward a way to get undocumented immigrants legalized, paying taxes, contributing fully, and on their way to becoming American citizens. Even if the changes Congress and the President adopt now don’t completely solve the problem right away, it will be a good step in the right direction, and that’s what we need.
Other research has found the following message to be effective:
Commonsense immigration reform will ensure fairness and accountability in the labor market. It will create a level playing field for workers and employers, lift wages for low- wage workers, punish unscrupulous employers who undercut their honest competitors, and increase tax compliance and revenues.
Facts That Matter
Americans are largely uninformed about the facts on immigration. While not all facts help to change minds, three facts are important to repeat, and to connect to our core narrative messages:
Under our current system, it’s almost impossible for many undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked here for years to become legal because there’s no process for them to do so—that includes children brought to the U.S. illegally at a very young age and who grow up here but have no way to become legal citizens.
Fixing our broken immigration system has to include creating a way for undocumented people to get legal, pay taxes, and participate fully in society.
There are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. It’s not realistic or humane to try to round up and deport them.
We need practical solutions, including creating a way for the undocumented immigrants who are here to get legal, learn English, contribute and participate fully.
The waiting lists for English language classes in some states are as long as three years.
The vast majority of immigrants want to learn English and become a full part of American society, but often lack a way to do so.
The Core Narrative and Specific Audiences.
The Narrative works well with all of the groups we’ve tested. But our research identified some differences in how it should be adapted for different audiences. For example:
Progressive whites largely rejected the idea of punishing undocumented immigrants for coming here illegally, requiring fines, or imposing waiting periods on social services, once people are on a path to becoming legal. This group also tended to shy away from combative or confrontational language from either side.
African Americans and Latinos were more likely than others to consider anti-immigrant commentators to be racially motivated. They are also more likely than other groups to be concerned about job losses and depressed wages due to immigration.
African Americans were receptive to the idea that corporate greed and the desire for cheap labor are to blame for the broken immigration system—though this message does not move them toward support for reform. They rejected as patronizing any message that singled out African Americans as different or separate from other Americans in their interests, and messages emphasizing the common interests of Blacks and immigrants also fell flat.
Members of all of these groups questioned whether it is realistic to require people to have a current job in order to become legal.
Applying the Message
In order to deliver a consistent, well-framed message in a variety of settings, we recommend structuring opening messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, Action. Leading with this structure can make it easier to transition into more complex or difficult messages.
Value:
When it comes to immigration, we need real solutions that uphold our nation’s values, and move us forward together. We need a system that’s fair and effective for everyone.
Problem:
But our current immigration system is badly broken. There is no way for undocumented immigrants to get legal, including people who were here as young children. And unscrupulous employers can prey on workers and pay low wages.
Solution:
We need practical solutions to fix our broken immigration system, so people can get legal, pay taxes, and participate fully in American society.
Action:
The time is now for the President and Congress to pass commonsense immigration reform. It will help our economy, help all workers, and it’s the right thing to do.
When addressing immigration in the current economic climate, it is clear that advocates need to support arguments with facts. It’s equally clear, however, that facts will only go so far. Research shows that people are often most motivated by their values – and if data don’t support their deeply held beliefs, audiences will reject them. So we need to shape conversations with values, and then support our arguments with the best data available. This memo sets forth some ideas about how to do this when it comes to opportunity and inclusion for immigrants.
A Core Narrative:
Workable solutions that uphold our values and help us move forward together
We recommend structuring messages under a shared narrative, developed in concert with immigration advocates from around the country in 2008. This framework is based on recent public opinion research, insight from media monitoring and analysis, and the experience of a range of advocates. We suggest framing both data and anecdotal evidence such as individual stories under the following broad themes:
Emphasize workable solutions: While immigration policy currently takes a backseat to anxieties about the economy, Americans generally agree that our immigration system needs fixing, and that it’s unrealistic to deport 12 million people. We need to promote solutions that appeal to this commonsense acknowledgment, and that emphasize that economic recovery requires the input and participation of everyone here.
In the current economic climate, arguments that show how immigration reform is not only workable, but beneficial to us all, can be particularly compelling. For instance:
When it comes to the economy, it’s clear that we’re all in this together. We desperately need everyone’s contributions to get us out of the mess we’re in. But our outdated immigration system stands in the way of allowing the full participation of everyone here. To address the economy, it’s clear that we need workable solutions to immigration that move us all forward together. Consider this: integration of undocumented would bring us $66 billion in additional tax revenue, compared to the costly figure of deportation estimated to be $202 billion, if deportation of 12 million immigrants were even possible.1 Add to that the additional brainpower and hard work that immigrants bring, and we’re headed in the right direction.
We need a workable solution to immigration issues. Too often, you’ll only hear people talking about enforcing current laws, or border security. But our current laws aren’t working. They make it nearly impossible for most undocumented immigrants to become legal and fully contribute to our society. And if we only concentrate on the border, we’ll only continue to waste money that we could better spend on strengthening our communities in these tough times. Case in point: between 1993 and 2005, we tripled our spending on border security. Since about 40 percent of undocumented workers entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas, emphasizing border security is not only costly, but also doesn’t get to the core of the problem.2
It’s also important to use public opinion polling data to bolster our arguments:
Americans want real solutions to immigration. Two-thirds consistently support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Americans of every political stripe recognize that fixing our broken system is in the country’s interest, and that these immigrants are already our co-workers, our neighbors, and frequently our family members.
Emphasize Values: Values are particularly persuasive when considering topics like due process and family reunification. Facts can help underscore what people already suspect or want to agree with because it aligns with their deeply-held values.
For generations, and today, America represents a promise of opportunity and immigrants continue to play a vital role in our communities, our culture and our economy. In fact, according to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity “forty-six in 10,000 immigrants started businesses in 2007, up from 37 in 10,000 in 2006 and compared to the overall rate of 30 per 10,000 adults. Immigrant-founded technology and engineering companies employed 450,000 workers in the U.S. and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006.”3
We need to uphold our respect for due process, a fair hearing, and access to a lawyer that are core American principles that we have to support. But there is such a backlog in the immigration courts that almost 90,000 people have waited for at least two years for their case to be heard after being accused of being here without documentation.4
Encourage moving forward together: We should remind our audiences of shared values and common interests as well as solutions that expand opportunity for everyone—for example, combining an earned pathway to citizenship with enhanced civil rights enforcement, living wages, police accountability, and job training for communities experiencing job and financial insecurity.
Organized labor is among those who recognize the need for practical and just solutions to undocumented immigration. These groups realize that to protect American workers, uphold labor laws for all, and lift wages, we need to reform our immigration system. More than 7 million workers live in the shadows of a system that takes advantage of them because they are undocumented. All workers in the United States deserve labor law protections, minimum wage, health and safety laws, and humane treatment that is based on the law not on immigration status.5
Immigrants – both documented and those without status – are already part of the fabric of our society. They are contributing members of our communities; they are our neighbors, classmates, coworkers and friends. We need to make sure they can participate fully in our society and contribute fully to our economy – through work, in school, for public safety. When this happens, we all benefit. For instance, over $400 billion will be put into the social security fund alone over the next 20 years by fully integrating immigrants into our society.6
Both immigrants and African Americans consistently list quality education and affordable health care among their highest priorities. Both groups’ kids suffer when we allow our urban schools and hospitals to flounder, and both benefit, along with our country, when we invest in strong schools and quality health care, as well as living wages and decent working conditions. In recent polling, African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos all listed affordable health care for seniors, affordable housing, education, and job creation and agreed that these were important for everyone here, citizens or not.7
Notes:
1. The Economics of Immigration Reform. Immigration Policy Center (April, 2009).
2. Amy Traub, Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen & Expand the American Middle Class, Drum Major Institute, 2007.
3. Robert W. Fairlie, Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, 1996-2007, April 2008.
4. Brad Heath, Immigration courts face huge backlog,” USA Today, March 29, 2009.
5. “Labor’s Support Strengthens Prospects for Immigration Reform,” Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles , Press statement (April, 2009).
6. The Economics of Immigration Reform. Immigration Policy Center (April, 2009).
7. Presentation of Findings from Focus Groups and a Survey Around Race, LCCR and Lake Research Partners, 2008
This report was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Project support from Unbound Philanthropy and the Four Freedoms Fund at Public Interest Projects, Inc. (PIP) 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 performed by Douglas Gould and Associates, under the direction of Sharon Lewis. Further contributions were made by The Opportunity Agenda. Editing was done by Laura Morris, with layout and design by Element Group, New York.
Foreword
In the summer and fall of 2008, The Opportunity Agenda commissioned three reports, to look more closely at the current attitudes and perceptions of immigration in the United States. Following its collection of research from 2006 and 2007, which examined the overall dominant message frames around immigration with specific focus on Web 2.0, African American and Spanish speaking press, we determined it would be beneficial to expand the body of literature by examining more closely two specific issues and two specific media of communication that help shape public discourse and opinion around immigration in our country. The findings and recommendations of our research are presented here in this three-part series.
In the first report of this series, two issues deeply tied to the immigrant experience are examined, public opinion and media coverage of English language acquisition and the children of immigrants. Previous research has shown that the public is greatly interested in immigrants’ ability and willingness to learn English, and also that some openings to promote pro-immigrant policy exist around children. Thus, understanding public perception of these issues is critical to developing strategies to build support for immigration policies.
The second report in this series focuses on Chinese print media in the United States. While continuing to expand the base of immigration support is important, also crucial is further connecting the existing bases. Therefore, examining media coverage of immigrants within their own native speaking and ethnic press offers insight into how these outlets can play a role in promoting immigration reform and integration policies.
Finally, The Opportunity Agenda commissioned a media analysis of broadcast news and talk radio, a gap in our previous scans which focused only on print media. Anecdotal evidence suggested that broadcast coverage played a substantial role in influencing the immigration debate. In this report, both national and local television news outlets were examined, as well as leading television and radio news commentary programs. We were interested in broad trends and how they related to our earlier findings in print as well as to our ethnic media scans.
The Opportunity Agenda is committed to working with leading voices in the pro-immigration movement, understanding that the immigrant experience is an important part of the American story— often an icon of the principles and values that encompass the promise of America. In working to build a national will for opportunity and equality that includes all persons living within our borders, The Opportunity Agenda has developed, with help from its many partners, a core narrative that unifies and strengthens the movement, calling for real solutions that uphold our nation’s values and move us all forward together as one group. In presenting these three reports, we hope that voices in the field not just better understand the messages that frame the immigrant experience, but move closer toward a unified vision that expands the scope of opportunity to all.
Introduction
Broadcast coverage – from 24-hour news channels to talk radio – has played a central role in shaping the public discourse around immigration. In fact, when immigration legislation died in Congress in 2007, many blamed talk radio.1
We examined how the topic was treated by major radio and television news and commentary shows, including those of broadcasters Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, NPR’s Michel Martin, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, and Fox News’s Laura Ingraham and Bill O’Reilly. We also looked at local television and radio immigration coverage in New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas. A methodology is presented in an appendix to this report.
Major Findings
People get their news more from television (where there is less time to uncover the nuances of an issue) than from newspapers,2 so the American public is getting a skewed picture of the immigration issue.
The language used to describe immigrants on popular television and radio shows is often extremely biased.
Some speakers who are pro-immigrant or those who are assumed to be objective use words that can dehumanize immigrants.
Right-wing talk show hosts inflame anti-immigration fears and sentiments by suggesting that immigrants cause and commit crimes.
Most of the coverage on immigration and immigrants focused on Latinos, who make up about half the foreign-born population in the United States.3 Many stories in the sample focused on the Latino voting bloc and immigration. However, Latino advocates often stated that immigration is not necessarily as important an issue for them as other hot-button issues such as health care and the economy.
Regionally, immigration stories spanned a range of issues from crime (the main focus of sample coverage from New York), to enforcement practices (Los Angeles), deportation (Miami), public events (Chicago), and politics and policies (Dallas).
More spokespeople were public and government officials (28%) than any other category, with advocates—both pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant—not far behind with 22%. Most of the public and government officials were elected officials (62%).
The visuals accompanying local coverage tended toward the negative and reinforced the idea of immigrants as criminals.
Detailed Topic Analysis
Nearly half our stories focused on either politics and policies (including stories about the election and legislation) or enforcement practices. It is not surprising that in an election year, politics dominated the coverage.
Politics and Policies (26%)
More than a quarter of the stories were political in nature, primarily about the election and the Latino voting bloc (34 stories). Coverage included presidential candidates speaking to Latino groups or addressing general immigration reform, and panel discussions that covered the full range of immigration issues. Another popular topic was speculation about the direction that Latino voters would swing in the presidential election, and the level of importance that this group assigned the issue of immigration.
Other stories in the politics and policies category focused on legislation, lawsuits, and court rulings (12 stories). Most of these were local stories that focused on state-level immigration policies, in the absence of national immigration reform. There were also several items from pundit Rush Limbaugh, who spoke about negotiations for proposed five-year visas given to “noncriminal immigrants,” which he dubbed “amnesty visas.”4
Enforcement Practices (21%)
Many of the stories in this category focused on sanctuary (13 stories) mainly in San Francisco and Chicago.5 Stories about sanctuary were found at both the local and national level (locally on WBBM in Chicago and KCRW in Los Angeles; nationally on ABC, CNN, NPR, and Fox News). Sanctuary was a popular topic on Fox News, where it was treated negatively in several stories. There were 10 stories on immigration raids, which occurred in both workplaces and homes (including a kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa). In one story a pro-immigrant advocate pointed out that the raids tear families apart and happen more in Latino communities; the speaker said this is racial profiling.6 A local story in Miami described how SWAT teams raided the wrong house, kicking the door in with their guns drawn and throwing concussion grenades into the house before realizing the mistake.7
Ten stories focused on police and security. Many of these were news pieces from Los Angeles that described how the police there continued to be under investigation a year after May Day marchers clashed with police; other stories focused on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s policies. Surprisingly, there were only six stories on border security. By contrast, in May–June of 2007, when national legislation was being discussed, border security was a much bigger topic. Since that time it has faded into the background, though it has not disappeared entirely. Furthermore, it is likely to be raised again if legislation is revived.
Deportation (12%)
Most of the deportation stories covered the Scheduled Departure pilot program that launched in the summer of 2008 in five cities. It offers undocumented immigrants with no criminal record the opportunity to schedule their own deportation within three months, rather than risk being caught residing in the country without documentation. The bulk of these stories ran nationally, with NPR running the most stories, then Fox News and CNN, followed by MSNBC. Many of the stories were critical of the program. For example, Dan Abrams cited the program for his piece “Why America Hates Washington,” and said the program was “drawing more than a few chuckles.” When the Abrams piece aired, only one person had self-deported.8 Advocates arguing against the program used words such as “ill-conceived,” “silly,” “failure,” and “fantasy”; they also described the policy as a response to bad publicity from recent raids conducted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
The acting director of ICE was interviewed several times and argued in favor of the program: “It provides an alternative to what many have criticized us for, which is the way in which we conduct fugitive operations, which are targeted enforcement actions at people’s residences, places of business, or other places that we can find them.”9 Stories ran locally in Chicago and Los Angeles. (Chicago and San Diego were two of the cities testing the program.) Other deportation stories focused on individual deportations and mass deportations by ICE, with fewer devoted to the mistreatment of detained individuals.
Crime (11%)
In our sample there was nearly equal coverage of crimes committed by immigrants as crimes committed against immigrants. Many crimes committed against immigrants were hate crimes. For example, in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, a Mexican immigrant was fatally assaulted in the street, while the attackers yelled racial slurs.10
Additional national coverage focused on a new study reporting hate crimes to be on the rise in Los Angeles, which some experts suggested to be the result of the increasingly vitriolic anti-immigration language used by opponents of “illegal” immigration.11
Much of the crime coverage focused on a case in Westchester County, New York, in which a Mount Kisco police officer was accused of wrongfully killing an immigrant.
Workplace and Social Services (10%)
Most of the stories on the workplace and social services focused on living and working conditions and compensation (seven stories). Stories in this category ranged from broad claims from Glenn Beck that immigrants’ working conditions are like modern-day slavery12 to evidence-based reports of abuses and mistreatment in the workplace.
Five stories related to health care are also part of this category. Most of these stories focused on treating immigrants without medical coverage over the long term.13 Another story focused on an undocumented immigrant in Chicago who was almost denied a kidney transplant because of his immigration status.14
There were three stories in this category that focused on education. These pieces covered how immigrants can get into college and what they can do with their degrees after graduation. These reports highlighted successful undocumented immigrant students, giving the audience a glimpse into the struggles students face due to citizenship status issues.
Events (6%)
Most event coverage in our sample was local and focused on pro-immigration protests and marches, many of which took place on May Day. Reporters covered these events objectively.
One of the anti-immigration events covered was a controversial exhibit in Chicago that displayed empty shoes representing people who died in crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. Victims ranged from those who died in drunk-driving accidents to victims of violent crimes. This story included the perspective of the anti-immigrant group responsible for the display, as well as of people viewing the exhibit who voiced their opposition to it.15 The other story in our sample that covered an anti-immigrant event focused on the president of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Chris Simcox, speaking at DePaul University, Chicago.16
Integration (5%)
Most stories on integration focused on naturalization ceremonies or on debates about a national language. Several stories covered Senator Barack Obama’s statement that American children should learn foreign languages to keep up with their European counterparts. Lou Dobbs was critical of Obama’s opinion.17
In addition, a study came out this year called “Inheriting the City,” which received some press locally in New York and nationally on NPR in our sample. The study looked at children of immigrants from five different ethnic groups. It found that these groups were fluent in English and were working in the mainstream economy.18
Immigrant Success Stories (3%)
Immigrant success stories were scarce. One story was that of John Aba, a native of Nigeria who signed up with the U.S. Army Reserves and served in Iraq.19 Another story focused on the son of undocumented immigrants who won a gold medal at the Olympics.20 A third story was on Manny Diaz, the mayor of Miami and the first immigrant to become president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.21
Interestingly, in The Opportunity Agenda’s 2006 analysis of mainstream print media, a major focus was the “immigrant striver” story, a double-edged sword from an advocate’s standpoint for its focus on individualism. By contrast, this was not a major focus for broadcast media.
Other (6%)
Some stories did not fit into any of the categories listed above. Many of these were local stories focused on tragedies suffered by immigrants, including fatal car accidents or fires. Stories also focused on public perception of immigrants and changes in demographics because of immigration.
Two stories (both from NPR’s Tell Me More) focused on America’s perception of immigrants. In the first interview Michel Martin asked Latino leader Belen Robles to comment.22 Robles contended that immigrant communities have allowed the media to define immigrants, despite the fact that immigrants are the ones who continue to develop the country. She said: “We need to take the lead and clarify just how much immigrants contribute not only to the economic but the cultural development of our country. . . . Studies show that most immigrants contribute more than they ever receive from this country.”
The second story included an interview with Congresswoman Hilda Solis of California, who was outspoken about a recent analysis (produced by Media Matters) of immigration coverage by Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, and Beck.23 She said such negative coverage can incite hatred and crime against immigrants.24 She noted the need for balance in immigration news stories and called for coverage of positive aspects of immigrants’ contributions. She pointed out that immigrant workers help to revitalize cities in California.
Just one story focused on the negative implications of immigration on population growth.25 Rick Oltman of Californians for Population Stabilization believes that immigration reform is needed to control population growth. This point of view was not widespread in our sample, and Oltman was challenged to defend his opinions in this interview.
Terminology Analysis
We observed dehumanizing language across stories—from the word “illegal” to describe undocumented workers to words describing animals that are considered pests.
Some of the language seems intended to invoke public fear: dominant themes emphasized immigrants as taking away jobs and health care and bringing violent crime to “our” shores. For example, in one piece California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher used the words “swarm” and “flood” to connote parasites, while referring to immigrants. He said: “We cannot afford to have tens of millions of people swarming into our country and expect that our country is going to stay the same, and that it’s not going to hurt our own people. In this case, we have so many young people swarming in, flooding into our country illegally . . . ”26
One news report focused on identification cards for undocumented immigrants in New Haven, Connecticut. The ID-card program allows undocumented immigrants to hold resident ID cards, which gives them access to city services. The story appeared on the Fox affiliate in New York and cited hate mail sent to public officials from people opposed to the city’s ID card policy. One email read: “I can’t wait for the rioting to break out. I have my automatic rifle ready to go and won’t hesitate to use it to kill these rodents.”27
Another phrase used to describe undocumented immigrants was “on the loose.” In one piece the anchor described how ICE is “no longer just concentrating on picking up immigration violators who have criminal records—they are going after everybody.”28 The reporter said: “Almost 600,000 individuals who are deportable are on the loose.” By stating that they are on the loose, the reporter likened undocumented immigrants to fugitives who have committed serious crimes and are on the run from the law, even though the piece mentioned that 90% of undocumented immigrants in South Florida who had been arrested in the raids did not have a criminal past.
“Fugitive alien,” “criminal alien,” “alien criminal,” and “immigration fugitive” are all phrases in sample stories that can incite fear in the viewer or listener. Moreover, these phrases were used to describe people found to be in the United States illegally, but who have not necessarily committed any crime.29
Anti-immigrant spokespeople, including the outspoken hosts of shows, sometimes used this fear- based language explicitly to drive wedges between undocumented immigrants and other communities. For example, in one piece Laura Ingraham said: “And the Hispanic community, legally in this country, whether it’s permanent residents or citizens, they themselves have been ravaged by crime committed by illegal immigrants who aren’t just here to do work but are here to cause trouble. And I think minority communities, more than anyone else, have suffered under the crushing wake of illegal immigration. That is also a problem that black Americans have spoken out against, and other people as well. So I think it crosses racial and ethnic lines here.”30 In several pieces Ingraham cited examples of illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes, reinforcing a stereotype of immigrants as criminals and as people to be feared.31
Further drawing lines, both Rush Limbaugh and Ingraham criticized the so-called open borders crowd (among them, according to Limbaugh, are the editors of The Wall Street Journal; Ingraham cited The New York Times and the ACLU).32
At times pro-immigrant spokespeople repeated negative language. In a story from the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which focused on new immigration laws in Arizona, reporter Jeffrey Kaye interviewed a pro-immigrant businessman, who said: “We must not go about the business of acting as if immigrants, even illegal ones, are leeches on our society. They aren’t.”33
We classified the tone of the terminology as either neutral (mostly when terms like “undocumented immigrant” were used) or dehumanizing (when terms like “illegal alien” or “illegals” were used). As the figures below indicate, the vast majority of stories used more dehumanizing than neutral terminology.
Spokesperson Analysis
Spokespeople were defined as guests or people interviewed or quoted on news programs, including journalists who were sometimes invited to offer commentary. However, the hosts of the shows themselves (such as Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh) were not considered spokespeople.
More spokespeople were public and government officials (28%) than any other category, with advocates—both pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant—not far behind with 22%. It is important to note that most of the public and government officials (62%) were elected officials.
Upon closer review of the advocates, we observed that more pro-immigration advocates (51) were quoted than anti-immigration advocates (32). Furthermore, pro-immigrant speakers were more often quoted first (68%).
Who is quoted first?
As pro-immigration advocates are frequently called upon to defend their positions, there are many opportunities available, both nationally and locally.
However, one noted trend was the tendency of pro-immigrant advocates to repeat their opponents’ negative messages. In an NPR story, for example, a pro-immigrant advocate said: “Immigrants are not just troublemakers that come in and milk the economy of this country, that we’re involved in drugs, that we are involved in all of those things, but rather that we have people that are hard working, that the only reason that they’ve come to this country is because they want a better life for themselves and their families . . . ”34 Research shows that “myth-busting” tactics tend to reinforce myths and preconceived notions rather than dispel them.
Public/Government Officials (28%)
Local law enforcement and ICE officials typically described operations such as Scheduled Departure, raids, and cases involving undocumented immigrants engaged in criminal activity. Members of Congress and other elected officials gave more opinionated assessments on the immigration system and law enforcement. Senator Barack Obama was quoted the most (16 stories), followed by Senator John McCain (13 stories). Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco were each quoted in four stories.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama was quoted in sixteen stories. In five stories he explained his approach to immigration reform, which includes penalizing employers who hire undocumented workers, promoting a system that ensures diverse groups of immigrants are represented, and reforming the legal system to ensure that people are not “being pushed” into entering the country outside legal channels.35 In three stories he attacked McCain for what Obama saw as a wavering commitment to immigration reform.36 He criticized the Arizona senator for saying that he (McCain) would not vote for McCain’s own immigration bill if it came up for a vote. Obama addressed the concerns of Latino voters in one story, and commented on the enforcement of current immigration policies.37 Five stories included Obama’s quote on American children learning foreign languages: he said that he believes the focus should shift from immigrants learning English, which he believes they will learn, to American children, who should learn foreign languages in an effort to keep up with their European counterparts.38
John McCain
John McCain was quoted in thirteen stories. In two stories McCain said the country must secure its borders in order to regain the trust of the American public.39 In another story McCain addressed securing borders, establishing a “truly temporary” guest worker program, and putting undocumented immigrants already in the United States on a “pathway to citizenship, requiring they pay fines, learn English . . . with the principle that they cannot have priority over those who came into the country legally.”40 McCain was also quoted as saying that he would support an “amnesty bill,” but under- stands that the American public would not accept it.41
Joe Arpaio
Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, has received a fair amount of media attention for his focus on capturing and deporting undocumented immigrants. In all four stories in which he was quoted, he expressed his belief that his job is to “enforce all of the laws in this land, including immigration laws.” Arpaio feels he should not be criticized for enforcing laws that are the responsibility of federal law enforcement officials, because he believes “they aren’t doing their job.”42
Gavin Newsom
Mayor Gavin Newsom was quoted throughout the sample on immigration policy in San Francisco. In one story Newsom said: “We are a sanctuary city, we don’t cooperate with the federal government as relates to these raids.”43 In another piece the reporter described how Newsom rescinded the sanctuary policy for juvenile offenders. Newsom said: “The fact is people have broken the law because the system is broken. You have no one to blame but every single federal elected official.”44 Newsom added in another piece: “We’ve always said that you’ll be deported if you commit felonies. That’s been the case in the adult system. There’s been this loophole in the juvenile system. That loophole has now been closed.”45
Advocates (22%)
Pro-immigrant advocates voiced a range of opinions on immigrant rights and policies. Anti-immigrant advocates used more consistent messages focused on the need for enforcement of immigration laws to protect the country and on the notion that immigrants should not receive “special treatment.”
There was little consistency in the messaging of pro-immigrant advocates. For example, some (such as Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Law Foundation) cited the need for better enforcement of immigration laws;46 others (such as Enrique Morones, founder of a group called Border Angels) called immigration raids immoral.47 Others, including Edward Juarez of the International Immigrants Foundation, spoke of the United States’ need for immigrants to further the nation’s social and economic development.48
While pro-immigrant advocates represented the majority of advocates in our sample, an anti-immigrant advocate, Rosanna Pulido (founder and director of the Illinois Minuteman Project), was the most quoted advocate in our analysis.
Rosanna Pulido
In one story Rosanna Pulido said undocumented workers come into the country and “steal American jobs.”49 In an ABC news piece, she expressed her anger at how law enforcement handles undocumented immigrants.50 Pulido was also quoted saying Americans should not have to “foot the bill” for undocumented immigrants, in reference to a controversy sparked by a kidney transplant performed on an undocumented teen.51 When the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Chris Simcox, was invited to speak at DePaul University, Chicago, Pulido said she was unhappy with the protests against the president of the student organization that invited Simcox to speak. She said that the students’ intention was to “rally controversy, not inspire hatred.”52
Attorneys (10%)
Some attorneys spoke out on behalf of their clients who ranged from undocumented immigrants, such as alleged gang member and undocumented immigrant Edwin Ramos; to individuals who allegedly committed crimes against undocumented immigrants, such as Colin Walsh, who was accused of killing an undocumented immigrant; to individuals affected by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. Other attorneys provided analysis on both crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and crimes whose victims were undocumented immigrants, and discussed enforcement of immigration policies.
Joe Russoniello
Joe Russoniello, U.S. Attorney for Northern California, was quoted in four stories. He was cited regarding San Francisco’s sanctuary policy and cases that have put that policy into question. Russoniello said that he was angry that San Francisco used taxpayer money to purchase plane tickets back to Honduras for undocumented drug dealers, and that this amounted to a “potential federal offense.”53 Russoniello also called San Francisco’s policy of shielding undocumented juvenile offenders “incompetent.”54 In another piece he said that San Francisco allows undocumented juvenile offenders to “game the system” by shielding them from federal authorities.55
Members of the General Public (8%)
Some examples of members of the general public included friends and family of undocumented immigrants who faced deportation, and residents commenting on policies affecting undocumented immigrants in their area. There was no general consensus in their opinions, which covered a range of topics.
Immigrants/Immigrant Workers (8%)
Immigrants made up just 8% of the people quoted, despite being the subject of discussion. Part of the reason for this discrepancy in the case of undocumented immigrants is the fear of being exposed and perhaps arrested and deported. However, it is important to note that, for the most part, immigrants across the board are not speaking for themselves in the media.
Flor Crisóstomo
One clear exception was Flor Crisóstomo, an undocumented immigrant who sought sanctuary in a Chicago church. Quoted in four stories, she was the only immigrant in our sample who was quoted in both national and local media. In one story she said the reason she is in the United States is to provide for her children who are back in Mexico.56 In another story Crisóstomo said she is not a criminal, and in another she said if she is arrested like a “common criminal,” she wants other undocumented workers to not give up.57 She blamed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for the current immigration crisis, because Mexicans are unable to compete in the United States with workers and goods from abroad.58
Journalists (7%)
Journalists who were guests on various programs represented 7% of the spokespeople in our analysis. Several journalists discussed immigration policies, such as Scheduled Departure, San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, and the ICE raids in Postville, Iowa, and Miami. Journalists also discussed the importance of the presidential candidates’ standing among Latino voters.
Business Leaders and Other Professionals (5%)
Some business owners expressed concerns about how local immigration policies affected their businesses. One business owner denied allegations of hiring undocumented workers; another business owner said he had hired undocumented workers because his concern was “getting what [he] . . . wants done,” not meddling in immigration affairs.59
Outlet Analysis
Over the three-month time period we analyzed, of the national outlets that were accessed through LexisNexis, NPR represented the majority of stories, with Fox News a close second, and CNN just behind. We found no stories from CBS or NBC and only a handful of stories on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, ABC, and MSNBC.
Of the national stories in our sample, 38% came from NPR. Pro-immigrant speakers and advocates were quoted first in 17 of the 32 stories, and the general tone of most of the stories was objective. NPR’s Tell Me More featured more stories on immigration than any of its other programs (10 of 32); while All Things Considered had 9 of the immigration stories, and Morning Edition had 6.
Fox News was another leading outlet, making up 30% of the stories in our sample. Most of the Fox News stories were critical of pro-immigration policies, and many guests had an anti-immigrant position. Hosts and guests alike used negative language, such as “illegal alien” and “illegals.” Pro- immigrant advocates were sometimes cut short by hosts including Laura Ingraham and Bill O’Reilly.
CNN was the source of 25% of the stories in our sample. The tone of these stories varied (some were critical; others were objective), and there was a mixture of people quoted—both pro- and anti- immigrant. Shows hosted by Fareed Zakaria and Wolf Blitzer were more objective and thoughtful in nature, while those hosted by Casey Wian and Dobbs were more one-sided.
Regional Analysis
We found distinctive patterns in the subjects covered by region. Immigration stories focused on a range of issues from crime (the main focus of our coverage from New York) to enforcement practices (Los Angeles), deportation (Miami), events (Chicago), and politics and policies (Dallas).
New York
Most of the immigration stories covered in the New York region were about crimes against immigrants. For example, a police officer in Westchester County was acquitted for allegedly beating a homeless undocumented immigrant to death; other stories addressed the murder of a Hungarian immigrant in Brooklyn and a Guyanese cab driver from Westchester. Other stories addressed crimes committed by immigrants, the deportation of an imam, inhumane conditions for undocumented immigrants who were detained, and the integration of children of immigrants.
Los Angeles
Enforcement practices were covered more heavily in Los Angeles than any other topic, because pro-immigrant protesters clashed with police at the annual May Day march in 2007, and an investigation was still under way one year later. Other stories from this city addressed deportation, the potential influence of new citizens on the election, and issues related to immigrants and the workforce or social services.
Miami
Immigration coverage in Miami focused primarily on individuals facing deportation. One news story focused on raids against immigrants facing deportation; one piece included interviews with people who witnessed Haitian refugees being smuggled onto a South Florida beach; another piece discussed SWAT officials conducting a raid on the wrong home; and one story examined federal legislation.
Chicago
The main focus of the Chicago stories was on events such as the annual May Day march, local immigration-related exhibits, and the controversy surrounding DePaul University’s invitation to Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, to speak. One exhibit questioned the necessity of building a border fence, while another displayed the shoes of people killed by undocumented immigrants. Other subjects included enforcement practices, integration, politics, deportation, and crime. The story of Flor Crisóstomo, an undocumented immigrant seeking sanctuary in a church, was also covered.
Dallas
Immigration coverage in Dallas centered heavily on politics and policies. One story described the government’s attempt to relieve its resident green-card backlogs; another piece featured a local politician who was promoting stricter immigration policies; and two stories described a rental policy approved in a Dallas-area town barring undocumented immigrants from renting apartments.
Analysis of Visuals
We examined the visuals used for the news stories, because research has revealed that what is shown can be much more persuasive than what is said.
Many of the visuals reinforced the notion of immigrants as criminals, even when this was not the focus of the story. For example, one story focused on a legal immigrant who was caught up in raids and assumed to be undocumented. Although this piece addressed a story about mistaken identity and a legal immigrant who was treated like a criminal, the images—which consisted of one person after another being arrested—reinforced a negative stereotype.60
In addition to people being handcuffed and escorted into police cars, other visuals that reinforced the notion of immigrants as criminals included photographs of alleged criminals, images of police and crime scenes, photos of victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, footage of immigrants crossing the border (in one case, they were ducking under a fence; in another they were escorted by someone in uniform), and court scenes.
Another trend we noticed while examining the visuals was the focus of individual stories. For example, several stories focused on Flor Crisóstomo, a woman seeking sanctuary in a Chicago church. Images of her were mostly positive: she was shown surrounded by supporters, hugging members of the church, learning English by reading the Bible with a reverend, and working in the church. However, these news pieces focused on her individual story, which would not necessarily move people toward policy change. In addition, these stories also included some negative visuals, including images of people getting arrested, reinforcing the notion of immigrants as criminals.
Another trend we observed was that those marching in favor of immigrant rights (or in protest of the Minutemen) often had disparate messages. We took a close look at the signs that marchers held up. For example, some signs said:
Equal high-quality education
No one is illegal
Legalization for all/legalization for everyone
Full rights for all immigrants now
Racism should be illegal, not humans
The workers’ struggle has no borders
Amnesty now
Immigrants work with pride
Stop raids
Recommendations
When using messages focused on economic opportunity, pro-immigrant spokespeople should talk about the economic system as a whole, including how it functions best when the needs and contributions of all workers are considered, and how it would not function without the services immigrants provide. Stories framed to focus on the system, as opposed to the individual, are more likely to motivate audiences to see policy changes, rather than individual initiative, as the solution to any problem posed. Advocates should be wary of the story of individual immigrants who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps; such stories likely lead viewers and listeners to believe that sheer hard work will allow all immigrants to get ahead, as long as they wait in line and work hard when they get here. This perception ignores the fact that systemic conditions keep some immigrants from accessing opportunities and suppress support for systemic policy solutions.
When selecting spokespeople to talk about a more humane and compassionate approach to the immigration issue, advocates might seek out unexpected messengers. For example, immigration advocates might wish to partner more visibly with business leaders who understand that the economic system would not survive without immigrants. In an economic downturn this point can be used to counteract the idea propagated by anti-immigrant groups that immigrants are “stealing” jobs.
Messages should emphasize protecting all workers from employer abuse, because this issue may transcend party lines. Research from The Opportunity Agenda shows that 87% of Americans see the right to fair pay for workers, to meet basic needs of food and housing, as a human right. However, it is not clear that the American public would extend this right to undocumented immigrants, since 77% of Americans believe healthcare is a human right, but about half of Americans do not view medical care for undocumented immigrants as a human right. That said, both conservatives and liberals acknowledge that immigrants are often working under terrible conditions, though their proposed solutions might differ. Therefore, discussions of shared values may be a good place to start the conversation, since there is room for agreement. Advocates should step up coverage of this issue and find ways to insert it into news.
It is helpful to start conversations with basic American values of fairness and justice, and by asking what kind of a country the United States will become if we do not insist that our policies uphold these ideals. After all, our country has a long history of immigration. Actions such as building walls or fences, terrorizing people who have not committed a violent crime, and generally taking militant and drastic measures against immigrants demean us all. We must ask ourselves, “To what end?” This is not just a question for civil libertarians but for all Americans.
Story ideas and studies around immigrant integration, citizenship, and success that show the positive impact of immigrants are helpful to reporters and can increase the likelihood of positive coverage. For example, a study entitled “Inheriting the City”— which was included in several news stories from our sample—focused on how immigrants are assimilating and contributing to New York’s culture and economy. Perhaps advocates can release studies in states across the nation that show the positive impact immigrants have.61 Citywide or nationwide studies are helpful when they present immigrants within a larger context, beyond an individual. These stories should be framed with the idea that immigrants are an integral part of our communities at all levels. They contribute and benefit, as all of us do. Messages should not reinforce the notion that people have to earn the right to be here by being model contributors.
Pro-immigrant religious leaders should proactively reach out to reporters covering immigration. The group most frequently quoted in the analysis was public officials; by contrast, religious leaders—who can add an important humanitarian perspective to the immigration debate—were rarely quoted.
Immigrants should also do more to reach out to the media, as they were rarely quoted in the sample, despite being the subject of discussion.
Immigration advocates can counter dehumanizing language by using language focused on immigrants as people; “immigrant families” or “people who are immigrants” are two phrases that could be used. Shining a spotlight on immigrants as families will further allow viewers and listeners to relate to immigrants. Advocates can also use positive messaging focused on the contributions immigrants make to our nation and on integration.
Immigration advocates should focus on values when addressing stories about enforcement. Cases of raids in which undocumented immigrants were denied due process, or in which legal immigrants were mistaken for undocumented immigrants, are clear violations of our national values of fairness and justice. Messages focusing on this, rather than on harm experienced by individual immigrants, are more likely to strike a chord with the public and raise support for fixing a flawed system. This approach can also shift attention away from the notion of immigrants breaking the law. In addition, when it comes to law enforcement topics, it is important to try to expand stories beyond portraying immigrants as either victims or perpetrators, dominant characters in the law enforcement theme, and find ways to include them in other roles.
Immigration reform goes beyond economic implications and affects other aspects of life, including hate crimes. It is critical that immigration advocates make their voices heard to emphasize the contributions that immigrants make. While this might not immediately result in a decrease in hate crimes, it will reinforce a positive view of immigrants and is certainly a step in the right direction.
Immigration advocates need to use consistent messages about the positive role immigrants play, and they must be careful not to use terminology or language that reinforces the negative stereotypes that anti-immigration advocates offer.
Only advocates with ample media training and experience should go on shows with hosts who might be hostile to their point of view (Laura Ingraham or Bill O’Reilly, for example). A pro-immigrant advocate hoping to receive more-objective coverage would do better on an NPR show, since this outlet can offer advocates the opportunity to be heard without having to confront net- work biases. Advocates should also seek out cable shows where hosts are more objective on the immigration issue (such as Fareed Zakaria and Wolf Blitzer).
Conclusion
Television and radio news coverage is crucial in influencing the public discourse around immigration. Although many broadcast hosts and anti-immigrant advocates are propagating misinformation, immigration advocates can take the concrete steps outlined in this analysis to sway policymakers and the public. One of the most important points made in this analysis is that advocates need to use consistent values-based messages to be more effective.
Appendix A: Methodology
We undertook an analysis of broadcast coverage of immigration, including radio, cable, and broadcast television outlets. Using Nexis.com, we searched transcripts from the following sources:
ABC News
CBS News
CNN
Fox News Network
MSNBC
National Public Radio (NPR)
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
NBC News
We searched for stories on immigration in these outlets over a three-month time period, sorted them by relevance within Nexis, and chose the top 84 stories for in-depth analysis.
We searched for stories from the archives of popular talk radio hosts with wide listenerships:
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
We examined 10 stories from Limbaugh and 10 from Beck.
We also searched the websites of the following radio show personalities, most of which lack archives:
Sean Hannity’s site does not have an archive, but since he is also on Fox News, he was covered when we performed a Nexis search.
Don Imus does not have an archive.
Paul Harvey does not have an archive.
Ed Schultz does not have a searchable archive.
We searched Rachel Maddow’s archive using our keywords and did not turn up any results.
We searched by accessing archives for Limbaugh and Beck, since Nexis does not include them in its archives. Unfortunately, the technology on these sites does not support an advanced search through which a time frame can be specified. Moreover, the number of search terms one can use is limited.
In addition to stories from the national outlets, we examined 82 local stories. In order to search local television and radio coverage and to include geographic diversity, we searched broadcast outlets from the following cities:
Los Angeles
Dallas
Miami
New York
Chicago
Stories from these cities provided us with an on the ground perspective from diverse regions with large immigrant populations and/or a heated immigration debate.
As we did for Limbaugh and Beck, we searched outlets in the cities listed above by accessing archives for individual stations, since Nexis does not include these stations in its archives. Unfortunately, often the technology on the sites of local television and radio outlets did not support an advanced search in which we could specify a time frame. Where it was impossible to specify dates, we at- tempted to choose one relevant story per month from a three-month time period. In some cases, we needed to go back several months to find relevant stories.
For consistency, we selected the local ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX television stations to view how each region covered the issue of immigration. We also included a variety of talk and news radio stations. Based on in-depth research, we selected the following outlets to include in our analysis:
Los Angeles
KABC (TV)
Local ABC affiliate http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/index
KCAL (TV)
Local CBS affiliate http://cbs2.com/
KCOP (TV)
Local FOX affiliate http://www.my13la.com/
KNBC (TV)
Local NBC affiliate http://www.knbc.com/index.html
KCRW (radio)
An NPR affiliate owned by Santa Monica College www.kcrw.com
KNX (radio)
A commercial station owned by CBS Radio www.knx1070.com
Dallas
KTXA (TV)
Local CBS affiliate http://cbs11tv.com/ktxa
WFAA (TV)
Local ABC affiliate http://www.wfaa.com/
NBC 5 (TV)
Local NBC affiliate www.nbc5i.com
KDFW (TV)
Local Fox affiliate http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/
KRLD (radio)
Local CBS Radio affiliate http://www.krld.com
KERA (radio)
Local NPR affiliate http://www.kera.org/index.php
Miami
WFOR (TV)
Local CBS affiliate http://cbs4.com/
WTVJ (TV)
Local NBC affiliate http://www.nbc6.net/index.html
WPLG (TV)
Local ABC affiliate http://www.local10.com/index.html
WSVN (TV)
Local FOX affiliate http://www.wsvn.com/
We were unable to provide radio stations for the Miami area, as they either lack websites with search capacity or their search function yielded no results.
New York
WABC (TV)
Local ABC affiliate http://www.abclocal.go.com/wabc/index
WCBS (TV)
Local CBS affiliate http://wcbstv.com/
WNBC (TV)
Local NBC affiliate http://www.wnbc.com/index.html
WNYW (TV)
Local FOX affiliate http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/
WNYC (radio)
An NPR affiliate with classical music, news, and talk www.wnyc.org
WINS (radio)
A commercial station owned by CBS Radio with a news format www.1010wins.com
Chicago
WBBM (TV)
Local CBS affiliate http://cbs2chicago.com/
WFLD (TV)
Local FOX affiliate http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/
WLS (TV)
Local ABC affiliate http://abclocal.go.com/wls/index
WMAQ (TV)
Local NBC affiliate http://www.nbc5.com/index.html
WGN (radio)
A commercial station owned by Tribune Broadcasting Co. with a news and talk format http://www.wgnradio.com
WBEZ (radio)
An NPR affiliate with a talk and news format www.wbez.org
Keywords
In keeping with past media analyses undertaken for The Opportunity Agenda, we used the following keywords:
Immigration
Immigrant
Appendix B: Bylines
ABC News
Andrea Canning (GMA)
Eric Horng
Glenn Beck (9 stories)
Amy Holmes
Joe Pagliarulo (subbing for Beck)
CNN
Wolf Blitzer
Campbell Brown
Alina Cho
Lou Dobbs
Tony Harris
Chris Lawrence
David Mattingly
Kitty Pilgrim
Susan Roesgen
Dan Simon
Mary Snow
Bill Tucker (2 stories)
Fredricka Whitfield
Casey Wian (5 stories, all on Lou Dobbs’s program)
Fareed Zakaria (2 stories)
Fox News
Alan Colmes (3 stories)
Sean Hannity (2 stories)
E. D. Hill (3 stories)
Laura Ingraham (9 stories)
David Lee Miller (2 stories)
Heather Nauert
Oliver North
Robert Novak
Bill O’Reilly (5 stories)
Caroline Shively
Jane Skinner
Greta Van Susteren
Rush Limbaugh (10 stories)
MSNBC
Dan Abrams
NPR
Margot Adler
Barbara Bradley
Hagerty Madeleine Brand (2 stories)
Farai Chideya
Cheryl Corley (2 stories)
Richard Gonzales (2 stories)
Adam Hochberg
Scott Horsley
Carrie Khan (2 stories)
Jennifer Ludden (5 stories)
Michel Martin (8 stories)
Renee Montagne
Michele Norris
Ted Robbins (2 stories)
Claudio Sanchez
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Jeffrey Kaye
Paul Solman
Judy Woodruff
Chicago
WBBM
Susan Carlson
Katie McCall
Mai Martinez
WBEZ
Lynette Kalsnes
Chip Mitchell (2 stories)
WFLD
Jeff Goldblatt
Byron Harlan
Darlene Hill
WGN
Jim Gudas
Milt Rosenberg
Orien Samuelson
WLS
Teresa Gutierrez (3 stories)
WMAQ
Mary Ann Ahern
Natalie Martinez
Alex Perez
Dallas
KDFW
Shaun Rabb
KERA
BJ Austin (2 stories)
Bill Zeeble
KRLD
Scott Braddock
KTXA
Mark Johnson
NBC 5
Ashanti Blaize
Meredith Land
Grant Stinchfield
WFAA
Monika Diaz
Gary Reaves
Los Angeles
KABC
Miriam Hernandez
Melissa MacBride
Subha Ravindhran
KCAL
Ken Wayne
KCOP
Bob DeCastro
Steve Edwards
Dorothy Lucey
Jillian Reynolds
Phil Shuman
KCRW
Warren Olney (3 stories)
KNBC
Cary Berglund
Conan Nolan
Vicky Vargas
KNX
Claudio Pescuita
Miami
WFOR
Carey Codd
Ileana Varela
WPLG
Jen Herrera
Jim Piggott
WSVN
Carmel Cafiero
WTVJ
Nick Bogert
Sharon Lawson
Tom Llamas
Hank Tester
New York
WCBS
Tony Aiello
Hazel Sanchez
WINS
Al Jones
WNBC
Vivian Lee
Andrew Siff
WNYC
Brian Lehrer
Leonard Lopate (2 stories)
WNYW
Mike Sheehan
Appendix C: Notes
1. Mike Allen, “Talk Radio Helped Sink Immigration Reform,” Politico, August 20, 2007.
2. The 2008 biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that 54% of respondents regularly watch local TV news; by contrast, 40% of re- spondents had read the newspaper the previous day.
3. Pew Hispanic Center, “Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2006.”.
4. Rush Limbaugh, “Secret Washington Deal on Amnesty Lite?” February 14, 2008.
5. WBBM, “Second Illegal Immigrant Seeks Refuge in Church,” January 27, 2008.
8. MSNBC, “Verdict with Dan Abrams,” August 6, 2008.
9. NPR (Tell Me More), “Government Ads Nudge Immigrants to Self-Deport,” August 13, 2008.
10. CNN, “Violent Death in a Small Town Turning into Questions of Race and Hate,” August 3, 2008.
11. Fox News, “Is Talk Radio Fueling Hate Crimes?” July 25, 2008.
12. Glenn Beck, “Modern Day Slavery,” July 28, 2008.
13. NPR (Tell Me More), “Hospitals Fly Immigrants Back to Native Lands,” August 7, 2008; CNN (American Morning), “How Much Free Care Is a Hospital Required to Provide?” August 21, 2008.
14. WMAQ, “Undocumented Immigrant Teen Receives Kidney Transplant,” August 7, 2008.
15. WLS, “‘Empty Shoes’ Exhibit Draws Controversy,” May 8, 2008.
16. WBBM, “Head of Minuteman Group Speaks Amid Protests,” May 19, 2008.
17. CNN (Lou Dobbs Tonight), “Obama Wants American Kids Learning Spanish,” July 9, 2008.
18. NPR (Weekend Edition Sunday), “‘Second Generation’ Has Edge,” August 24, 2008.
19. KTXA, “New Citizen Has Special Respect for America,” May 22, 2008.
20. KNBC, “Son of Illegal Immigrants Wins Olympic Gold,” August 20, 2008.
21. WPLG, “Miami Mayor Becomes President of U.S. Conference of Mayors,” August 7, 2008.
22. NPR (Tell Me More), “Robles Shares Wisdom from Trailblazing Career,” July 9, 2008.
23. Media Matters, “Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News,” May 21, 2008.
24. NPR (Tell Me More), “California Rep. Says Immigration Issue Is Misunderstood,” May 27, 2008.
25. Fox News, “Just In,” June 19, 2008.
26. Fox News, “America’s Election Headquarters,” July 14, 2008.
27. WNYW, “Immigrant ID Card Controversy,” July 13, 2008.
28. WTVJ, “Immigration Attorney Criticizes ICE Raids,” April 7, 2008.
29. KCAL, “SoCal Cities Test ‘Deport Yourself’ Program,” August 3, 2008; WSVN, “Family and Friends Hold Vigil for Teen Facing Deportation,” June 11, 2008.
30. Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor), “Immigration Reform,” June 20, 2008.
31. Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor), “Unresolved Problem: Immigration Raids,” August 1, 2008; Fox News, “Just In,” June 30, 2008.
32. Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor), “Unresolved Problem: Immigration Raids,” August 1, 2008.
33. NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “South Koreans Protest U.S. Beef Imports Policy,” June 11, 2008.
34. NPR (Tell Me More), “Robles Shares Wisdom from Trailblazing Career,” July 9, 2008.
35. NPR (Tell Me More), “Candidates Court Latino Voters at a Major Conference,” July 9, 2008; CNN, “Interview with John McCain; Q & A with Barack Obama,” July 27, 2008; NPR (Tell Me More), “Foreign Policy, Islam Rumors Headline Obama Forum,” July 28, 2008; Fox News, “Just In,” June 30, 2008; Fox News, “Reality Check: Obama on Immigration,” July 14, 2008.
36. CNN, “NALEO Conference,” June 28, 2008; CNN, “Obama, McCain Address Latino Groups,” July 8, 2008; NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “Fed Announces New Lending Rules to Help Housing and Credit Markets,” July 8, 2008.
37. NPR (Morning Edition), “Immigration Issue Doesn’t Divide McCain, Obama,” June 10, 2008; Fox News, “America’s Election Headquarters,” July 8, 2008.
38. CNN, “Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Controversial Remarks about Obama,” July 9, 2008; CNN, “Mc- Cain’s Failure to Relaunch?; Country-Wide: Locating the Political Pulse on Importance of Presidential Election,” July 11, 2008; Fox News, “Obama English-Only Comment Stirs Controversy,” July 10, 2008; Rush Limbaugh, “Lord Obama: Ashamed of the U.S., Thinks Americans Are Backwards,” July 9, 2008; Rush Limbaugh, “Mrs. Clinton Targets Hispanic Vote,” January 28, 2008.
39. CNN, “NALEO Conference,” June 28, 2008; CNN, “Obama, McCain Address Latino Groups,” July 8, 2008.
40. CNN, “Interview with John McCain; Q & A with Barack Obama,” July 27, 2008.
41. Rush Limbaugh, “McCain Pushes for Amnesty for ‘God’s Children,’” May 23, 2008.
42. Glenn Beck, “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” June 12, 2008; CNN, “Broken Borders with New Tactics,” June 20, 2008; NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “South Koreans Protest U.S. Beef Imports Policy,” June 11, 2008.
43. CNN, “San Francisco Mayor Switches Stance on Illegal Immigration,” July 7, 2008.
44. Fox News, “America’s Election Headquarters,” July 21, 2008.
45. NPR (Morning Edition), “San Francisco Under Fire for Immigrant ‘Sanctuary,’” July 31, 2008.
46. Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor), “Unresolved Problem: Immigration Raids,” August 1, 2008.
47. Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor), “Immigration Reform,” June 20, 2008.
48. Fox News (The Big Story with John Gibson), “Just In,” July 2, 2008.
49. WFLD, “Latino Community Protests Immigration Raids,” August 22, 2008.
50. ABC News, “Seeking Sanctuary; Safe Haven for Illegals,” July 20, 2008.
51. WMAQ, “Undocumented Immigrant Teen Receives Kidney Transplant,” August 7, 2008.
52. WFLD, “Immigration Speaker Sparks Controversy at DePaul University,” May 17, 2008.
53. NPR (Morning Edition), “San Francisco Admits to Shielding Immigrant Felons,” July 4, 2008; Fox News, “San Francisco Under Fire for Flying Illegal Drug Criminal Home,” July 1, 2008.
54. CNN, “San Francisco Mayor Switches Stance on Illegal Immigration,” July 7, 2008.
56. ABC News, “Seeking Sanctuary; Safe Haven for Illegals,” July 20, 2008.
57. WFLD, “Few Takers in Self-Deport Program,” August 18, 2008; WLS, “Chicago Prepares for Immigration March,” April 28, 2008.
58. WBBM, “2nd Illegal Immigrant Seeks Refuge in Church,” January 27, 2008.
59. NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “South Koreans Protest U.S. Beef Imports Policy,” June 11, 2008.
60. WFAA, “Lawyers Aim to End Immigrant Raids,” June 21, 2008.
61. Another example of a study showing the positive impact of immigrants was released by the Fiscal Policy Institute in November 2007. According to an article in The New York Times, the study, called “Working for a Better Life,” showed that immigrants contribute nearly one-fourth of the economic output of New York State, and outside New York City they are overrepresented in some critical occupations, including higher education and health care. The study received great media coverage, although it is not included in our sample since our methodology called for focusing on the last three months.
This report was written by Meredith King Ledford, MPP, and reviewed by Juhu Thukral and Ross Mudrick of The Opportunity Agenda.
This report was made possible in part by a grant from The Libra Foundation. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the report’s authors and The Opportunity Agenda.
The Opportunity Agenda would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable comments and assistance in the preparation of the report: Algernon Austin, Ph.D., Director of the Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute; Marc Mauer, Executive Director, The Sentencing Project; and Brian Smedley, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of the Health Policy Institute, The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
We would also like to thank Eric Mueller and Ramona Ponce of Element Group, and Tony Stephens of The Opportunity Agenda, for their work on the design process. This report was produced using green and recycled materials, at Fine Print INC.
Opportunity in America
This report documents America’s progress in protecting opportunity for everyone who lives here. By analyzing government data across a range of indicators, it reports on the state of opportunity for our nation as a whole, as well as for different groups within our society.
Opportunity is one of our country’s most cherished ideals and one of our most valuable national assets. The promise of opportunity inspires each generation of Americans—regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, or national origin—to strive to reach his or her full potential. Fulfilling this promise not only benefits each of us individually, but also society as a whole. In order to capitalize on our nation’s potential, we must ensure that the doors of opportunity are open to all Americans as we work to move forward together.
The Current Economic Crisis
As this report goes to press, the nation is facing the most daunting economic crisis since the Great Depression, including steep increases in unemployment, home foreclosures, and lost assets. Yet, because public sources of governmental data generally reflect a time lag of a year or more, much of the full brunt of today’s economic trauma is not reflected in this report. On many indicators of opportunity, the present reality is likely far worse than the most recent available year’s statistics would suggest. The quickly changing economic environment emphasizes the importance of creating a centralized, public, online system that provides “real-time” access to government opportunity data as it becomes available, disaggregated by demographic and regional differences. Such a system would greatly aid governmental, academic, and civil society groups in their efforts to protect opportunity under challenging circumstances, and we recommend that the federal government take action quickly to establish it. In the interim, however, we provide here some of the most recent available data regarding opportunity during the current economic crisis.
Unemployment, Foreclosure, and Bankruptcy
As of early 2009, the economic outlook was dismal. According to three key indicators–the unemployment rate, the foreclosure rate, and the bankruptcy rate—economic opportunity was severely limited. Jobs were scarce, particularly in communities of color. As of February 2009, 12.5 million people were unemployed, putting the overall unemployment rate at 8.1%. Men were more likely to be unemployed than women–the rate of unemployment was 8.1% for adult males as compared to 6.7% for adult females. African Americans, with an unemployment rate of 13.4%, were nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as whites, whose rate was 7.3%. The rate for Latinos was also disproportionately high, at 10.9%. However, Asian Americans had a lower than average rate of unemployment, at 6.9%.1
The January 2009 foreclosure rate showed that a mainstay of the American dream and a historical path to wealth accumulation–homeownership–was increasingly out of reach even for those who had once been on their way to achieving this dream. RealtyTrac, a national online database of foreclosed properties, reported that between January 2008 and January 2009, the foreclosure rate2 increased 17.8% to 1 in every 466 U.S. housing units.3
As a result of the economic downturn, many Americans found themselves unable to keep up with their mortgage, credit card, and auto loan payments, which in turn led to a sharp increase in bankruptcy filings. According to the January Credit Trend report by Equifax, Inc., one of the largest U.S. credit bureaus, the bankruptcy rate increased 25% between January 2008 and January 2009. The same report showed that almost 7% of all homeowners were behind 30 days or more on their primary-residence mortgages in January 2009, up by more than 50% since January 2008. Moreover, 4.2% of payments on credit cards were at least 60 days late, up 29.5% since January 2008, and 1.9% of borrowers of auto loans from carmakers were 60 days behind on the loans, an 18.8% increase from January 2008.4
Our Assessment of Opportunity for 2009
Because achieving full and equal opportunity is a core national commitment, it is essential to measure our success in fulfilling that commitment, just as we measure our nation’s economic health and military preparedness. By gauging how the nation fares in protecting opportunity, we can build on our successes and address those areas where we are falling short.
In February 2006, The Opportunity Agenda released The State of Opportunity in America. The report analyzed and measured the nation’s progress along six values of opportunity, mentioned below. An update one year later, in the 2007 report, found that despite some positive changes, significant opportunity gaps persisted in wages, education, housing, the criminal justice system, health care, and other areas. In some important areas, such as access to health care, opportunity had significantly decreased.
Now, in 2009, examination of these and other opportunity indicators finds that access to full and equal opportunity is still very much a mixed reality. The nation has made great strides in increasing opportunity in some areas and for some communities, but many groups of Americans are being left behind in ways that hard work and personal achievement alone cannot address. A review of the latest two years of available data reveals that opportunity in the United States remains at a crossroads.
Why Measure Inequality?
As our analysis indicates, different American communities often experience starkly different levels of opportunity, and there is real reason to believe that the current crisis is affecting some communities far more severely than others.
For example, in recent years, Latino and African American families have already found themselves struggling to push forward and maximize opportunity. Latino families actually experienced a decrease in real median income even as the country experienced an increase in its gross domestic product.5 Latinos consistently had the highest participation in the labor force of America’s major racial and ethnic groups between 2000 and 2007. Their decline in real median income highlights their diminishing returns, in terms of income, from their work.6
African Americans also did not attain lasting economic security when the American economy was gaining ground, especially when considering the subprime mortgage crisis. From 2000 to 2004, African Americans were building wealth through homeownership. During this time, the homeownership rate for African Americans increased from 47.2% to 49.1%.7 However, between 2006 and 2007, the rate declined 1.5%, returning it to its 2000 level of 47.2%.8 This decline may be explained by African Americans’ disproportionate representation in the subprime mortgage market, which has had a high rate of foreclosure.9 Subprime mortgages, while sometimes beneficial to individuals who have less-than-perfect credit records, are often aggressively marketed to the elderly, people of color, and low-income individuals regardless of credit history.10
These data are indicative of a larger threat to opportunity and security in America. Research has found that a basic standard of living that provides financial security for a family of four costs $48,788 annually. Unfortunately, 29.8% of families have incomes below this amount.11 African American and Latino families fare even worse: 53.0% of African Americans and 57.4% of Latinos have incomes insufficient to achieve a basic standard of living.12
The Opportunity Agenda views opportunity through the lens of our most deeply held values: Security, Equality, Mobility, Voice, Redemption, and Community. This report measures the degree to which we as a society are living up to these values, and incorporating them into our most critical decisions. Key findings of this year’s report include:
Security
Americans believe that we are all entitled to a basic level of education, economic well-being, health, and other protections necessary to human dignity. Recent years saw only two areas where opportunity for security increased—decreases in heart disease and cancer mortality rates—while other indicators were mixed or reflected declines in opportunity.
Access to health insurance is one indicator of security. While the number of people without health insurance decreased overall and for most racial and ethnic groups, Asian Americans experienced an increase in lack of coverage. Moreover, Americans also experienced increases in out-of-pocket health care costs and the rate of delaying medical care due to cost.
Regarding economic security, the overall poverty rate did not change significantly between 2006 and 2007—12.5%, or 37.3 million people, lived below the poverty threshold of $10,590.13 However, the overall child poverty rate increased, as did the poverty rates for children of color. The overall child poverty rate was 18% (13.3 million children) in 2007, an increase of 3.4% since 2006.14 Poverty rates also increased for naturalized citizens and noncitizens. Additionally, although poverty rates for most groups of workers decreased, African American workers experienced an increase in poverty.
Finally, the unemployment rate increased significantly for all groups.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for security declined for the years examined.
Equality
Ensuring equal opportunity means not only ending intentional discrimination, but also removing unequal barriers to opportunity. The wage gap is a crucial indicator of equality. In 2007, women’s median income was 78.2% of male median income, reflecting no significant change from 2006.15 Nevertheless, opportunity improved with respect to the gender wage gap, because white and Latina women made some strides toward closing their respective gaps.
The race and ethnicity wage gap continues as well. The wage gaps between African Americans and whites and Latinos and whites increased during this time. In 2007, African American individual median income was 75.2% of white median individual income, compared to 77.4% of white median individual income in 2006, a 2.9% increase in the gap. The increase in the Latino-white wage gap was smaller, increasing 2.0%.16 In the same time period, the gap between white individual median income and Asian American individual median income decreased.17
Regarding asset-building, a significant gap persists between whites and African Americans. However, the racial gap in households with debt or very few assets decreased between these two groups.
Gaps in educational achievement are also key indicators of equality. The gap in high school dropout rates between African Americans and whites and Latinos and whites increased. However, the race and ethnicity gap in high school degree attainment decreased. In terms of college degree attainment, the gap between Latinos and whites closed significantly.
Finally, the racial gap in incarceration rates decreased for women, but increased for men.
Our overall assessment indicates that equality of opportunity was mixed for the years examined.
Mobility
Every person in America should be able to fulfill his or her full potential through effort and perseverance. Where a person starts in life economically, geographically, or socially should neither dictate nor limit his or her progress and achievement. In terms of individual median income, only whites took a meaningful step forward. However, median family income increased overall and for white and African American families. Furthermore, distribution of income by family increased, meaning that the share of family income for low- and middle-income families increased.
Education is a key indicator for mobility. High school degree attainment did not significantly change for the overall population or most groups, but it did increase significantly for Latinos. However, the high school dropout rate for women and African Americans rose. Finally, college degree attainment increased overall and for all groups.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for mobility improved for the years examined.
Redemption
Americans believe strongly in the value of a chance to start over after misfortune or missteps. Access to drug treatment for prisoners and voting rights after completion of sentence improved. However, opportunity decreased as related to the incarceration rate, and to the increased incarceration of immigrants.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for redemption was mixed for the years examined.
Community
A shared sense of responsibility for each other is a crucial element of opportunity. While public opinion that government has a responsibility to those who need assistance increased, trust in the government declined.
Another key indicator of community is racial segregation in schools. In the twelve years from 1993-94 to 2005-06, k-12 public education segregation significantly decreased for white and American Indian students, but significantly increased for African American, Latino, and Asian American students.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for community was mixed for the years examined.
Moving Forward
From the assessments across these values, we found that, despite some areas of improvement, opportunity for all Americans is at risk, and millions of Americans are facing an opportunity crisis. These past few years have seen an economy in turmoil, impaired financial mobility, marginal prospects for educational advancement, and a broken health care system. These conditions thwart the nation as a whole as it strives to be a land of opportunity for the 21st Century. At the same time, women, people of color, and moderate- and lower-income individuals and families are being hardest hit and left behind as they face multiple barriers to opportunity.
Despite positive news in some areas such as overall degree attainment, representative government, and distribution of family income, these indicators reflect a nation in which opportunity is at grave risk across multiple dimensions. The ability of American families to make a better life for their children is stifled by increased child poverty; accessing health care is increasingly difficult; and more Americans are behind bars in federal prisons. And despite an historic presidential election, equality of opportunity has declined for millions of Americans, with the wage gap faced by Latinos and African Americans increasing, and Latina and African American women making less than 70 cents for every dollar made by men overall.
These barriers are a problem not only for individuals and families, but also for our economy and nation as a whole. They also present an opportunity. Addressing them now would translate to thousands more college graduates prepared for a 21st Century global economy, millions of healthier children in stronger communities, higher wages and greater productivity for American workers, far fewer mort- gage defaults and bankruptcies, and far less strain on our social services and justice system. Conversely, the areas of improved opportunity revealed by our analysis represent a foundation and lessons on which to build as the nation works to restore the American dream for everyone who lives here.
Recommendations Toward Fulfilling Opportunity for All Americans
This report holds important implications for policymakers, civic leaders, and all Americans concerned about the state of opportunity in the United States. Through bold leadership, innovative policies, and the participation of the American people, the nation’s elected leaders can ensure the promise of opportunity in America.
Security
A range of opportunity-expanding policies can enhance the security of our nation and its residents, especially in the context of economic, health, and safety concerns. Our recommendations include:
Assist low-income families and insecure communities in moving into the middle class.
Problems of poverty and income insecurity can be reduced by expanding policies that promote living wage standards; job training and skill-building for the 21st Century global economy; access to affordable child care; quality education; and temporary financial assistance programs. Ways to support low- income communities include promoting mixed-income housing; encouraging regional planning to address inequality between urban and suburban jurisdictions; and supporting public transportation programs that reliably and efficiently help people who live in areas of high unemployment to commute to areas of high job growth and opportunity. Use of an Opportunity Impact Statement in assessing the best use of public resources and infrastructure will maximize positive impact on insecure communities. (See Community recommendations for description of an Opportunity Impact Statement.)
Help low-income families develop assets.
Policies that help poor and low-income families to develop financial literacy and long-term assets like savings accounts, homeownership through fair and appropriate loans, and savings for college education are critical to supporting secure communities. These strategies shift the emphasis of poverty reduction from solely providing cash assistance to helping poor and low-income families acquire resources necessary to achieve greater financial security. Promising approaches include creating individual savings accounts; expanding the earned income tax credit and child tax credit; reducing asset limits for public benefit programs; and implementing anti-predatory lending measures.
Eliminate disparities in access to affordable quality health care and the tools for healthy living.
Health inequality and insecurity must be addressed by federal, state, and local efforts to develop a universally accessible, comprehensive, and equitable health care system. This includes ensuring the fulfillment of Americans’ human right to quality health care; providing greater financial commitment to local community-based health centers; increasing access to healthy foods and safe playgrounds for all Americans; providing safe, confidential, and reliable access to contraception and other reproductive health care needs in a manner that is linguistically and culturally appropriate; and creating clean environments that eliminate toxic air and water quality.
Equality
There is a continued need for vigorous enforcement of existing equal opportunity protections and strengthening of human rights laws and standards. Our recommendations include:
Increase the staffing and resources that federal, state, and local agencies devote to enforcing human rights and equal opportunity laws. Particularly in light of this year’s unprecedented federal economic recovery investments, there is a need to strengthen the capacity of the Coordination and Review Section in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. This Section is charged with the immense task of coordinating civil rights enforcement across federal agencies, and has not historically been utilized effectively. It is also critical that the offices for civil rights in federal and other agencies be fortified to properly protect equal opportunity. In light of substantial economic stimulus spending targeting job creation and infrastructure, and past neglect of civil rights enforcement, White House oversight and inter-agency coordination of these efforts are warranted. Increased attention to civil rights enforcement will result in concrete steps forward in opportunity for all Americans, whether it is in equal wages and work opportunities, fair housing, education, or other areas of public spending.
Institute, at the federal level, an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights and develop a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. Given America’s role as a leading player in establishing a human rights framework, it is important that we make a clear commitment as a nation to our obligations to protect and strengthen human rights both here at home and abroad. An Interagency Working Group on Human Rights can play a proactive role in ensuring that U.S. international human rights responsibilities are implemented and coordinated domestically among all relevant executive branch agencies and departments. In addition, there is a need to restructure and strengthen the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, transforming it into an effective U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. This body would operate as a national human rights commission, which would provide expertise and oversight to ensure that we progress toward provision of full human rights for all. Both of these institutions will address disparities as they affect racial and ethnic groups, women, and members of marginalized communities.
Improve methods and resources for detailed data collection for the general population and groups. It is critical that government, researchers, and everyday Americans have access to information that is disaggregated to help identify and resolve trends in unequal opportunity. This report illustrates that data currently available is limited. Improved data collection by all levels of government can assist in identifying discriminatory patterns in employment, education, housing, lending, and the criminal justice system, and lead the way to development of innovative solutions. For example, data can be used more effectively to better detect potential bias in the employment context by comparing companies’ workforce diversity with the composition of an area’s qualified workforce. We therefore recommend a centralized, public, online system that provides “real-time” access to government opportunity data as it becomes available, disaggregated by demographic and regional differences.
Mobility
Renewing socioeconomic mobility requires that we ensure access to quality education, skill-building programs, and other gateways to wealth building and human development. Our recommendations include:
Promote early childhood and K-12 school programs that improve the quality of education and graduation rates. Innovative policies that invest deeply in children’s education and improve graduation rates can reap great rewards in mobility over a lifetime. Promising strategies include universal pre-k; increased funding to under-resourced schools; integrated services that address family and community needs; expanding the school day to increase time spent on learning; and providing programs for English Language Learning that promote integration and education for immigrant children.
Invest in comprehensive and integrated education efforts that expand opportunity for all. Education remains a path to mobility throughout our lifetimes. This means that investments must be made in education on financial literacy, including debt and business counseling, saving, and asset- building; job training and skill-building programs for a 21st Century global economy; educating incarcerated people for reentry; linguistic and cultural competence for immigrants; and reducing the financial barriers to college, with a special focus on increasing the share of need-based grants over student loans. It is critical that job training programs emphasize preparedness for quality jobs that pay a living wage and are tailored to the differing skills of all workers.
Expand living wage laws at the federal, state, and local levels to help ensure that full-time minimum wage earners can support their families. Living wage laws at the local level ensure that city or county governments will not contract with businesses that pay workers wages less than is needed to live above poverty levels, given local economic conditions. A focus on living wage— rather than merely on a minimum wage that rarely meets basic needs—would serve to close racial, ethnic, and gender gaps in wages, and also move all Americans closer to achieving financial stability for their families.
Redemption
The nation’s criminal justice policies should protect the public, deter future offenses, and provide restitution to victims. However, they should also restore and rehabilitate individuals and communities whose lives are affected both directly and indirectly by criminal justice policies. Our recommendations include:
Prioritize crime prevention, rehabilitation, and reentry over increased incarceration. There has been a growing trend toward incarceration as a problem-solving tool, particularly in low-income and minority communities, as reflected in high incarceration rates and persistent racial disparities. Criminal justice policy that supports opportunity requires successful crime prevention strategies while fostering rehabilitation and productive reentry. Such strategies include expanding availability of substance abuse treatment, both broadly in society and for those mired in the criminal justice system; basing criminal sentencing on individualized culpability, control, and circumstances, rather than on mandatory minimum sentencing policies that have exacerbated racial and ethnic inequality; expanding use of restorative justice programs; ending the sentence of life without parole for youth; and promoting appropriate re-entry policies that provide support, living wage jobs, and restoration of voting rights for people who return to society from prison and work to re-integrate into their communities.
Expand community policing—a crime-prevention strategy that emphasizes community input, collaboration, and tailored responses to crime and disorder. Policing policies should promote neighborhood safety, address community needs, and protect opportunity and human rights. Many community policing models emphasize a problem-solving framework that shifts the emphasis from arrest and punishment to addressing community needs. Other models encourage prevention strategies that engage and provide support to youth and families. Such approaches are especially helpful where there is an increase in the homicide rate for communities of color. This policing framework draws heavily on the goals and law enforcement needs of the community, which suffers most when crime is poorly addressed and redemption is denied.
Promote workable immigration policies that uphold our national values. Increasing incarceration of immigrants, either for violations of civil immigration law or for arrests related to nonviolent criminal acts, is not a realistic policy solution for addressing immigration. Immigrant detention, especially of families and children, is harmful and counter to our national ideals of dignity, redemption, and the protection of vulnerable people. Immigration enforcement should shift back to the federal level, proven supervised release practices should replace detention, and a realistic pathway to citizenship should be adopted.
Voice
Many factors influence the diversity of voices that participate in the national discourse. Such participation is a key factor in achieving equal access to opportunity, both through focusing dialogue on the needs of underrepresented communities and by creating a venue for demanding accountability and transparency for actions taken by the public and private sectors. Our recommendations include:
Ensure and expand political participation among diverse groups of Americans. In order to achieve democratic participation and representation that reflect the full spectrum of American life, we need the active political participation of all groups in our communities. Central to this goal is equal access to the vote, with policies that address complications caused by geographic and language barriers, faulty voting equipment and infrastructure, inadequately trained poll workers, state laws disenfranchising people with felony convictions, and other state and federal policies that disproportionately limit voting among marginalized groups. For example, Election Day voter registration is a promising practice used by a growing number of states, as are laws restoring the voting rights of people emerging from prison.
Promote local ownership and operation of new and traditional media outlets. Deregulation and consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries have resulted in diminished opportunity for independent media that address the needs of diverse groups to gain a foothold. It is critical to ensure the participation of communities of color in political and cultural life by creating opportunities for diverse voices to affect the public discourse on issues that matter to them.
Bridge the remaining digital divide among diverse communities. The expanded availability of communications and digital technologies can and should result in concrete benefits for all sectors of American life. Equitable investment in digital infrastructure across communities will create economic and educational opportunities for all Americans, including information about financial literacy and local resources such as access to healthy foods and recreational spaces. Furthermore, protecting Net Neutrality is a key step in ensuring that the internet remains a diverse and democratic forum for all communities.
Community
Inclusive policies that tap the strength and contribution of all our diverse communities are crucial to the progress of our nation. Our recommendations include:
Evaluate public expenditures through the lens of an Opportunity Impact Statement. All levels of government can and should use a new policy tool—an Opportunity Impact Statement—as a requirement for publicly funded or authorized projects, especially those that are tied to economic recovery. Examples of potential projects that might require such an assessment include school, hospital, or highway construction, or the expansion of the telecommunications infrastructure. The statements would explain, based on available data, how a given effort would expand or contract opportunity in terms of equitable treatment, economic security and mobility, and shared responsibility, and they would require public input and participation. In addition to leading to concrete investments that move all Americans forward together, this participatory tool can help restore Americans’ trust in the government.
Make expanding opportunity a condition of government partnerships with private industry. Government agencies at all levels can and should require public contractors to invest in communities by paying a living wage tied to families’ actual cost of living for that particular locale; insisting on employment practices that promote diversity and inclusion; and ensuring that new technologies using public resources or receiving other benefits include public interest obligations and extend service to all communities.
Develop practical immigrant integration policies that assist newcomers in attaining full participation in the social, cultural, and political life of our nation. Given the important role that immigrants play in America’s cultural and economic life, it is critical that we create effective and inclusive immigrant integration policies. These include programs that educate new Americans about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace, in civic participation, and relating to law enforcement and other institutions. An important element of these policies is assisting new Americans in learning English and providing multilingual access to necessities like healthcare and basic rights like voting for citizens. A key corollary to this is the need to better equip our infrastructure and communities to incorporate diverse new members. These efforts should be pursued alongside immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants.
Measuring Opportunity — Our Method of Assessment
For this report, we assessed the progress of opportunity by examining many of the same indicators as in The State of Opportunity in America, released in 2006. We measured “change” in opportunity by reviewing 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 data from mainly federal sources (Note: for a small number of indicators, the most recent official data is from 2004). For the indicators available, we calculated the percent change over the most recent year that data was available (i.e. from 2006 to 2007 or 2005 to 2006). For certain indicators, we measured a gap or a disparity between subpopulations and the majority population. For example, in the instances of racial and ethnic gaps, the white population served as the comparison group and in the instances of gender gaps, men served as the comparison group.
Change in opportunity for one indicator in the community dimension—k-12 public school segregation— was measured using longer trend data. We assessed public school segregation using enrollment data in public schools over a thirteen-year period from the 1993-94 to 2005-06 school years. Additionally, change in opportunity for three indicators in the redemption dimension–drug treatment for prisoners, voting rights while imprisoned, and voting rights after completion of sentence–was measured by assessing the passage of legislation over a one-year period.
Racial and Ethnic Categories
Each indicator calculated the change over the time period for the nation as a whole, as well as disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, and income when data was available. Because the data sources were largely federal, racial categories for many of the indicators in this report are the same as the racial and ethnic categories utilized by the federal government. Hence, the racial categories are defined as the following:
White: any person who self-identified as white only and non-Hispanic.
Black: any person who self-identified as black only.
Asian: any person who self-identified as Asian only.
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN): any person who self-identified as AIAN only.
Hispanic: any person of any race who self-identified as Hispanic.
Because the Hispanic ethnicity category is not mutually exclusive from the race categories, there is some double counting of individuals who identified as black and Hispanic, Asian and Hispanic, and AIAN and Hispanic when federal sources were used. However, the white race category includes only individuals who identified as white in federal sources.18 Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native data is rarely available in federal sources, which explains its large absence in this report. In a few instances, in which the data sources utilize different racial categories, this report’s indicators do as well. (Note: In the narrative of this report, we use these terms—African American, Latino, and Asian American—rather than the categories used in the sources in recognition that they are the prevailing terminology for race and ethnic categories.)
Limitations
We recognize that opportunity may be defined and measured in many ways. This assessment is limited in its ability to capture all dimensions of opportunity. Annual data were not available for some indicators, and therefore, some indicators that were in the original report and the 2007 update were omitted from this report. In addition, we encountered significant limitations in the data related to opportunity that government and other institutions collect. For example, data are often unavailable or are inadequate for many racial and ethnic groups other than whites, African Americans and Latinos.
Further, these broad racial and ethnic categories often fail to adequately capture the diversity within U.S. racial and ethnic groups, which may vary considerably on the basis of immigration status or nativity, primary language, cultural identification, and area of residence. A full assessment of opportunity should include a consideration of how opportunity varies along these dimensions. For example, we did not find group information such as variations among Asian American and Hispanic nationality groups.
Similarly, federal data are rarely presented disaggregated by both race and ethnicity and measures of social class or socioeconomic status. Yet the opportunity barriers for low-income whites may differ in important ways from those of more affluent whites and some communities of color. We encourage researchers to examine how opportunity indicators differ by race, ethnicity, gender and income, and to explore their interaction. We also urge federal, state, and local governments to collect and disaggregate data along the broader spectrum of dimensions discussed above.
Nonetheless, by assessing progress across a range of opportunity indicators, as this report does, we hope to provide a summary of how the nation is experiencing opportunity today. To see all of the indicators and for more information, please visit www.opportunityagenda.org.
Notes:
1. “The Employment Situation: February 2009,” The Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 6, 2009.
2. The foreclosure rate includes filings of default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions.
3. “Foreclosure Activity Decreases 10 Percent in January,” RealtyTrac, Inc.
4. “Factbox-Equifax US consumer credit trends for January,” Reuters.
5. Austin, Algernon and Maria Mora, Hispanics and the Economy: Economic Stagnation for Hispanic American Workers, throughout the 2000s, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #225. October 31, 2008, pg. 1-2.
6. Ibid.
7. Austin, Algernon, Reversal of Fortune: Economic Gains of 1990s overturned for African Americans from 2000-2007, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #220. September 18, 2008, pg 6.
8. Ibid, and US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership, “Annual Statistics 2007,” Table 20.
9. Austin, Algernon, Reversal of Fortune: Economic Gains of 1990s overturned for African Americans from 2000-2007, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #220. September 18, 2008, pg 6.
10. For more information on subprime loans and predatory lending practices, see Subprime Loans, Foreclosure, and the Credit Crisis: What Happened and Why? – A Primer, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University and Women are Prime Target for Sub- prime Lending: Women are Disproportionately Represented in High-Cost Mortgage Market, The Consumer Federation of America, December 2006.
11. Lin, James and Jared Bernstein, What We Need to Get By, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #224. October 29, 2008, pg. 2.
12. Ibid., pg. 6.
13. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 24 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 1.
14. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 3.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Historical Income Tables – People” Table P-36. 16 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Historical Income Tables – People” Table P-4.
15. Ibid.
16. See the “note” section at the end of any federal source to find the definition of racial categories used.
17. Ibid.
18. See the “note” section at the end of any federal source to find the definition of racial categories used.
This memo sets forth themes and ideas on talking about immigration during the current economic downturn. While the challenges are great, there are also opportunities in talking to audiences who matter to us most, and who are most persuadable in this area. These include communities of color, low-wage workers, and progressives. Together, these groups comprise the support we need to ensure that local, state, and federal policies are realistic, effective, and uphold the values of fairness and opportunity. To inspire them we need messages that, in addition to speaking to fears about the economy, also build on the sense that we are all in this together, that we need to encourage a role for government in crafting solutions, and that immigrants have important contributions to make.
Immigrants have always had great contributions to make to our country and our economy, so it only makes sense that we include them as we address the economic downturn and our efforts toward recovery. We need to make sure that it’s possible for everyone to play a role in fixing the mess we’re in.
A Core Narrative:
Workable solutions that uphold our values and help us move forward together
We recommend structuring messages under a shared narrative, developed in concert with advocates from around the country in 2008. This framework is based on recent public opinion research, insight from media monitoring and analysis, and the experience of a range of immigration advocates. It has also been well received in very early focus group testing. This intelligence suggests the following principles for communications on immigration:
Emphasize workable solutions: While immigration policy currently takes a backseat to anxieties about the economy, Americans generally agree that our immigration system needs fixing, and that it’s unrealistic to deport 12 million people. We need to continue to promote solutions that appeal to this commonsense acknowledgment, and that emphasize that economic recovery requires the input and participation of everyone here. It is also true that many of our key audiences do not realize or understand the barriers undocumented immigrants face in trying to become legal. Messages should emphasize that there are no workable solutions for many people already living and working here, and that those who are currently undocumented want to be here legally, but have limited or no options.
Infuse messages with values: January’s inauguration helped to reignite Americans’ pride in core values like opportunity, community, equality, and shared responsibility. While invoking such values is not a silver bullet in messaging, research shows that the public reacts positively to values-based messages, and is motivated to protect the values they consider central to our country and our history. In the cases of due process and detention, research has found this approach to be particularly effective.
Encourage moving forward together: The economic crisis gives anti-immigrant groups yet another opportunity to try to drive wedges between immigrants, African Americans, and low- wage workers. We should remind these audiences of shared values and common interests as well as solutions that expand opportunity for everyone—for example, combining an earned pathway to citizenship with enhanced civil rights enforcement, living wages, police accountability, and job training for communities experiencing job and financial insecurity.
Move from “Myth Busting” to documenting our story: There are many myths and falsehoods about immigrants, especially undocumented workers, in the public discourse, and it is imperative that the truth be told. But research shows that a strategy of repeating and explicitly “busting” those myths generally serves to reinforce them in the public’s mind. We recommend instead using accurate facts affirmatively to support our own values-based story.
Know the opposing narrative: Anti-immigrant spokespeople are consistent in their use of two dominant themes, regardless of their specific point: Law and Order (“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?”) and the Overwhelming of Scarce Resources (the notion that there are not enough jobs, health care or education to go around).
Talking Point Guidelines
The following bullets are examples of how to talk about immigration during tough economic times. It is understood, however, that the immigration movement has diverse audiences, regional needs, and challenges. We propose using the shared narrative as a general guide while focusing on the following themes, but using the wording, symbols, and stories that best suit your needs.
We need workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and help us move forward together…
We need everyone’s help and know-how to repair our economy, improve education, and generate jobs. Immigrants have a stake in those systems—we are caregivers and health professionals, teachers and students—and we are a part of the solution.
Reactionary policies that force people into the shadows haven’t worked, and they are not consistent with our values. Those policies hurt all of us by encouraging exploitation and low- wage, under-the-table employment that depresses wages. We need policies that help immigrants contribute and participate fully in our society.
It’s clear that our economy and our trade and immigration policies are no longer working for anyone but a select few. Instead of scapegoating immigrants and terrorizing families and communities, we should make America work for all of us.
Currently, it’s almost impossible for many undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked here for years to become legal, in spite of their great desire to do so. A system that denies a whole subset of workers the rights and responsibilities the rest of us enjoy is not workable or fair – and it’s not helping to repair our fractured economy.
We need to protect all workers and law-abiding employers. Our immigration system needs to work for everyone, not just for those employers looking for low-cost labor. Part of the solution is recognizing that it would be far better if all immigrant workers were here legally and could exercise the same rights on the job as native-born workers. Equal rights strengthen the bargaining power of all workers. The first step toward realizing this equality is ensuring that our system makes it possible for undocumented immigrant workers to become legal, which it currently does not.1
Our policies must recognize that we’re all in this together, with common human rights and responsibilities. If one group can be exploited, underpaid and prevented from becoming part of our society, our common humanity is threatened, and none of us truly enjoy the opportunity and rights that America stands for.
Immigration Reform
To bring stability, opportunity, and fairness to American workers, families, and communities, we need to enact common sense immigration reform. Congress and the President need to work together to get a handle on our immigration system and find solutions that help all workers fully participate in our economy.
We need to protect American taxpayers. We also need to fix our immigration system to move towards eliminating the underground economy it perpetuates. By legalizing the undocumented workforce, we will bring these workers out of the shadows and put more workers and employers on our tax rolls.2
Anti-immigrant extremists are preventing a legal immigration system that works and distracting us from addressing real challenges like rebuilding our economy.
African American Audiences:
The African American community has always been the conscience of our country when it comes to human rights and dignity. Keeping 12 million people in the shadows, without human rights and subject to exploitation, is not in the moral or economic interest of black people, or our nation, and we have to stand against it.
Immigrants and African Americans are increasingly part of the same neighborhoods and communities, and we need solutions that enable us to rise together with all Americans. We each consistently list quality education and affordable health care among our highest priorities. All of our kids suffer when we allow our urban schools and hospitals to flounder, and we all benefit, along with our country, when we invest in strong schools and quality health care, as well as living wages, decent working conditions and freedom from discrimination.
The recent economic stimulus package has addressed some of the issues facing our communities, but we have to make sure that investment is spent in communities where it is needed most. We have a better chance at success in these areas if we come together to protect our most vulnerable communities, including communities of color, and immigrants.
These are tough times, but squabbling amongst ourselves will only hold all of us back. We need to work together for practical solutions that ensure opportunity and protect our human rights.
Notes:
1 From Talking Points from the National Immigration Forum, America’s Voice and the Immigration Policy Center.
2 From Talking Points developed by the National Immigration Forum, America’s Voice and the Immigration Policy Center
What are Community Values and why are we promoting them now?
Community Values are long held American values. Community Values say that we share responsibility for each other, that our fates are linked. Whether described as interconnection, mutual responsibility, or loving your neighbor as you love yourself, Community Values are moral beliefs, a practical reality, and an important strategy.
For the past 30 years, the theme of individualism has dominated our national dialogue and common culture. Instead of favoring policy that works for everyone, this approach tells people to go it alone. We see the results in our fragmented healthcare system, the divisive debate on welfare reform, and in recent, though unsuccessful, attempts to overhaul social security.
Americans are becoming tired of this individualistic approach to policy, and to life in general. The country is ready for a new inclusive vision and a new generation of positive solutions. It’s time to reclaim values in the political conversation. It’s time to turn Americans’ attention to our long history of working collectively, standing up for each other, and upholding the common good.
The Community Values Toolkit
Included here are ideas, advice, and resources for moving toward this new political conversation, beginning with the 2008 presidential election.
Community Values Phrase Basket
General Talking Points
Building a Message
Examples of Language and Usage
Sample Media Pieces
Community Values Phrase Basket
We’re All in it Together – So Let’s Say the Same Things!
Below we’ve provided the drumbeat terms that we plan to track and measure the use of, to see how Community Values language is faring in the political debate. We’ve also included some terms to use to define the opposition.
It may feel awkward at first to weave the terms into your communications. But if you think about how others have used familiar terms such as “family values” or “tax relief,” you may start to get the idea of what it looks like when a term infiltrates the popular vocabulary.
Phrase Basket
Community Values Phrases: The Opposition:
Drumbeat Phrases:
Community Values ideology) “You’re on your own” (mentality, approach,
Policies of Connection “Go it alone” (mentality, approach, ideology)
Policies of Isolation
Also suggested depending on audience:
(We’re all) In it together Community neglect
Stronger together Everyone for themselves
The Common Good Pull yourself up by your bootstraps
Sharing the ladder of opportunity Pulling up the ladder behind you
On the same team Standing alone
Looking our for each other Leaving people behind
Standing together
Shared or Linked Fate
General Talking Points
This is really about Community Values. Are we going to acknowledge that we’re all in this together, and that we need to look out for each other? Or are we going to tell everyone to go it alone?
What’s missing here are Community Values. Telling people that [issue] is their individual problem is not only unworkable, it’s contrary to our nation’s long-held belief that we’re stronger together, that we look out for each other and work for the common good.
What we need are more policies of connection that recognize our reliance on each other, and how much more we thrive when we stand together. Simply telling people that they’re on their own is not an American option.
Look, we’re all on the same team here. This country thrives when we draw on our Community Values to solve our problems. There are those who say that we each need to figure it out on our own, but that go it alone mentality is obviously unworkable and not an option in today’s interconnected world.
I’m tired of the myth that we should all just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, buck up, and get on with it. When it comes to health care, to our public school system, to the future of social security, I don’t want politics of isolation to drive public policy. We’re in this together, and we’ll rise together.
We all know instinctively that we’re stronger together. And history shows that when we work together to solve our problems, placing the common good as a top priority, we all move forward. When we leave people behind, we all suffer. I’m for a country that embraces those kind of Community Values again, let’s leave the “go it alone” mentality behind.
We have to recognize that we live in an interconnected world. Our actions have consequences beyond ourselves. Our fates are linked. Insisting on an old-fashioned go it alone mentality is not only unworkable, it’s just wrong.
Building a Message
Where possible, our messages should: emphasize the values at risk; state the problem; explain the solution; and call for action.
Value at Stake
o Why should your audience care?
Problem
o Documentation when possible
Solution
o Avoid issue fatigue – offer a positive solution
Action
o What can your audience concretely do? The more specific, the better.
Example:
Our shared Community Values mean that we come together to solve our problems. We look our for each other and understand that leaving anyone behind is not an option.
But we’re falling short of that ideal—millions of Americans can’t live on the wages they are paid for full-time work. By refusing to address this situation in a meaningful and realistic way, we’re failing these workers and members of our community.
We need to ensure that anyone who is working full time can support their family.
Tell your Member of Congress to support a real and living wage. It’s about workers, families and supporting Community Values.
Messaging Questions
Some useful questions to consider when building a message include:
Who are the heroes and villains of this story? We need to think through various roles played by the characters in our stories. For instance, a common conservative frame is that of tax relief. If people need “relief” from something, it is an affliction. If taxes are an affliction, they are never good and those who relieve us of them are heroes. Those who propose more affliction are villains. Using this term, then, is not helpful to anyone promoting increased government support for programs.
Who does the narrative suggest is responsible for solutions? The conservative theme of individualism suggests that as individuals, we should solve the bulk of our problems ourselves. Instead of an inclusive health care system, for instance, we should have individual health savings accounts. Focusing on individual success stories can have the same effect. The story of an immigrant coming to this country, starting a business and becoming a model citizen can be helpful in many ways, but it doesn’t underscore the need for community or societal level programs to help newcomers. The solution is portrayed at an individual rather than a systemic level.
What are the long term implications of this narrative? Does it point toward the solutions we want? Sometimes, in hopes of providing a dramatic, media friendly story advocates use examples that can lead audiences in unhelpful directions. For example, in appealing for money for a specific child abuse prevention program, advocates might use dramatic statistics of children injured or killed each year by abuse and neglect. These statistics will get media coverage and draw attention to the problem of child abuse. However, they are unlikely to lead audiences to the solution that prevention advocates desire. If the long term goal is to increase funding for prevention programs that support parents, advocates have instead made their audience less sympathetic to parents, and more supportive of punitive measures that do not include prevention.
Does the story inadvertently invoke unhelpful cultural narratives? For instance, in talking about health care, we sometimes use a consumer frame. But this competitive frame is actually unhelpful if the solution we want to promote is universal care. Consumerism implies that we are economic players competing for limited resources. Instead, we want to promote the idea that the system is stronger when we’re all in it.
Does the story use our opponents’ narrative? Consider the recent debate about proposed immigration reform. Many advocates engaged in conversations about whether reform would or would not grant “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants. But by focusing on the word “amnesty,” advocates strengthened the “law breaker” narrative. In this story, “illegal” immigrants and those who fail to punish them are the villains. However well intentioned, arguments that immigration reform is “not amnesty” reinforce opponents’ arguments. We should be careful to avoid using such stories, particularly when we talk to persuadable audiences might support our positions if we framed them differently.
Community Values Caveats
Additional considerations when building a community values message.
Attacking personal responsibility
It’s important to note that promoting Community Values should not appear to abandon all forms of individualism. Americans believe strongly in the value of individualism and “personal responsibility.” And that belief cuts across ideological lines.
People want individuals to take responsibility and also to control their own destiny. These worries can prevent them from fully embracing Community Values if they view such values as letting people off the hook, providing handouts, or removing individual choices and empowerment. Bringing the idea of opportunity into the conversation can help us to point out that systemic barriers to opportunity prevent many individuals from moving forward.
Talking about interconnections that harm, rather than help, us.
In stressing community values, we want to emphasize the ties that bind us as neighbors, workers, Americans and humans. Our fates are connected, so it’s in all of our best interests to move forward together. However, we should not imply that we only need to care about other people’s circumstances if it’s in our best interest.
For instance, advocates might make the case that we should cover all immigrants in new health care reform plans because if we don’t, we are at risk of becoming infected with any diseases they carry. While invoking a linked theme, this narrative isn’t helpful in the long-run as it implies 1) that immigrants are a danger to us and 2) that if their health does not affect us, we don’t need to worry about including them.
Instead, we should emphasize that recognizing our connections is important not only to protect our own interests, but also to understand how we’re part of something bigger.
Invoking the charity frame when promoting the common good.
The term common is useful because gives a name to the entity we hope to benefit. It names exactly what we want to win: an outcome that is good for the community. However, this term can also lead people to think of charity first. This idea says that we help others – often termed the “less fortunate” – through “handouts.” There are certainly heroes to this story, but if we’re not careful, those benefiting from charity can be painted as the villains. In addition, this is a judgmental frame that does not empower groups that have typically faced the biggest barriers to opportunity. In invoking the common good, then, it’s important to point out the solutions we seek: shared power and responsibility, not a one-way, “privileged to unprivileged” exchange.
Using exclusive or nostalgic versions of community
Sometimes we lean toward limited or nostalgic Norman Rockwell illustrations of community that call up ideas of “the old days”, the Eisenhower years, childhood neighborhoods, or our own, limited surroundings. This is problematic for several reasons.
Neighborhoods, for one, are rarely inclusive, so that metaphor alone can be troubling. We need Community Values to mean benefit for everyone, not communities pitted against each other only looking out for their “own.”
Similarly, “the old days” didn’t hold a lot of promise for many groups. People do like the idea of old-fashioned small towns where everyone knows each others’ names, families are intact, and white picket fences prevail. But the old days in the form of 1950’s America was also home to racism, segregation, limited opportunity for women, and hostile to gays and lesbians.
Community Values should mean drawing on our shared history of collectively solving our problems. We can do this by using examples of how we’ve solved problems collectively, such as the New Deal or Civil Rights. This is an instance where patriotism can aid our cause by igniting people’s pride in our ability to work together.
History shows we move forward when we invest in an effective partnership between government and our people. Think of child immunization programs that have wiped out devastating diseases in our country. Think of our Social Security system that has enabled millions of seniors to stay out of poverty. Medicare has kept them safer and healthier without regard to their wealth, race, or region of the country. Think, even, of the interstate highway system, which connected us as a single prosperous nation. To address our health care crisis effectively, we need to invest in those kinds of policies of connection.
Applying Community Values to Health Care
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: When it comes to health care, we’re all in it together. We’re a stronger nation when everyone has the health care they need.
Problem: So when 47 million Americans lack health insurance, our whole nation’s health and prosperity are at risk.
Solution: We need policies of connection in our health care system that guarantee access to affordable health care for everyone in our country.
Action: Ask the presidential candidates if they’ll embrace Community Values and guarantee health care for every single member of our nation.
Messaging Examples
Embracing Community Values means creating a health care system that works for everyone. Anything less leaves people behind to suffer poor health, bankruptcy, and even early death. We thrive when everyone moves forward, so making sure health care is available for everyone is critical to our nation’s success.
Health care reform should create a system that works for everyone. That means health care has to be universal, free of racial and ethnic bias, comprehensive, and designed to meet community needs. If one element is missing, the system isn’t complete. For example, we might expand insurance to everyone in a state, but that doesn’t mean everyone is getting the same quality of care. We need policies of connection here, that look at and address all the pieces of our health care system equally. In taking a true Community Values approach to health care, we can’t overlook quality, access or other important issues when we think about coverage.
When it comes to health care, it doesn’t make sense to force people to “go it alone.” We need to promote a Community Values approach. When we spread resources fairly, everyone gets the care they need before problems become costly and more difficult to treat. All social insurance rests on this idea of pooling resources and sharing risk as broadly as possible, recognizing that we’re all in it together. This is particularly important in health care.
Our history shows that we’re stronger when we tackle tough issues together. When we have worked together for clean and healthy drinking water, to provide child immunizations, or to reduce smoking, we’ve all benefited. We’re currently looking for ways to address childhood obesity together. We know that this Community Values approach will work better than telling families to figure it out on their own.
Applying Community Values to Immigration
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: Immigrants are part of the fabric of our society—they are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends.
Problem: Reactionary policies that force them into the shadows haven’t worked, and are not consistent with our values. Those policies hurt us all by encouraging exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords.
Solution: We support policies that help immigrants contribute and participate fully in our society.
Action: Ask your candidates what they would do to ensure that immigrants are treated fairly and given a voice in this country.
Messaging Examples
For America to be a land of opportunity for everyone who lives here, our policies must recognize that we’re all in it together, with common human rights and responsibilities. If one group can be exploited, underpaid and prevented from becoming part of our society, none of us will enjoy the opportunity and rights that America stands for.
Reactionary, anti-immigrant policies have repeatedly failed to fix the problem. They’re not workable and they’re not fair to citizens or to immigrants. They hurt all of us and make a bad system worse. We’re all in this together, and such policies of exclusion violate the core sense of community that has always driven the policies that have moved this country forward.
Our immigration system should reflect that immigrants have always been part of this nation. But immigration isn’t just a domestic issue; it’s an international reality. We need comprehensive immigration reform that works for the good of all and reflects the interdependence of nations, communities, and workers.
As long as our federal immigration system is broken, it’s up to local communities to decide how to work with immigrants. Would you rather live in a place that understands the meaning of Community Values, of working together with immigrants to find solutions? Or a place that moves toward punitive, exclusionary measures? In this country, we value people, and we value treating them the right way. Cooperation and common sense solutions for the common good are the way to go.
Applying Community Values to Workers’ Issues
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where we rise together and leave no one behind.
Problem: But too many families are living on the edge of this dream, shut out by unfair labor practices and wages that don’t even put them at the poverty level.
Solution: Our policies must recognize that we’re all in it together, with common human rights and responsibilities. If one group can be exploited, underpaid and prevented from becoming part of our society, none of us will enjoy the opportunity and rights that America stands for.
Action: Ask your candidates what they would do to ensure that all workers are treated fairly and given a voice in this country.
Messaging Examples
Embracing Community Values means that we share a basic concern about one another, and accept that the well being of each one of us, and each of our families ultimately depends on the well being of all of us. As a wealthy nation, we have a shared responsibility to use our collective wealth to establish and support programs that help people rise out of poverty.
The fates of all workers are connected. When some employers pay workers below the minimum wage or don’t pay them for working overtime, these practices quickly spread and other employers try to profit by following these bad examples. This type of race to the bottom ultimately leaves workers competing with each other over lower wages and fewer benefits. Instead of emphasizing cost-savings and competition, we need to encourage ethical and compassionate business practices that are accountable to the community, and cooperation among workers.
We, as a community, must demand that all workers are fairly paid for the hard work they do. This doesn’t just make sense from the perspective of workers, but it’s good for society as a whole. Providing workers with a living wage makes it possible for them to better care for their families, save for the future, contribute to the community and build a stronger America.
A business is just another part of our community. But all too often, most of the people in the community have little or no voice or power in the business decisions that affect the community. We need business interests to recognize that they are part of us and have a responsibility to respect the needs of the community. That means paying workers a fair wage, being good stewards of the environment that we all share, and giving back to the community.
Sample Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor are a quick and effective way to weigh in on issues that the media frequently cover. Often, more people read the letters page than the pages where the original article appeared or the opinion page. Letters need to be short – about 150 words – so it’s best to focus on one point. In the examples below, the letters focus on weaving Community Values into a call for federal immigration reform.
Letters do not need to be negative. Responding to an article that positively portrayed an issue you care about can set a tone friendlier to Community Values than the confrontational tone central to letters of disagreement.
To the Editor:
Thank you for your informative portrait of one town’s experience with immigration. This piece shows that we have a long way to go. But it also illustrates the community values that will ultimately help us address this issue.
Iowa needs and values immigrants, their work, and their contributions to the community. Yet the state’s ability to welcome its newest residents continues to be strangled by the federal governments’ inability to pass reasonable legislation. Instead of giving into the politics of division and isolation favored by anti-immigration forces, these Iowans have chosen to think about immigration in a community-spirited, humane and practical manner. The federal government should take note.
To the Editor:
Your recent article about immigration was a real eye opener. In the divisive rhetoric we hear in the immigration debates, I feel that this human story of community values is so often lost. Absent in this story were the one dimensional stereotypes of oppressive law enforcement or problematic immigrants. Instead, we saw a community-minded portrait of people working together to make the best of a system over which they have no control.
I believe we need more realistic reflections about what immigration really means to communities. Immigrants are already clearly a part of the community, why can’t the federal government not clear the way for positive integration, so that everyone can move forward?
Sample Press Release
Press releases are more than an opportunity to publicize an event or report. They are also messaging vehicles. While the main text of the release should be primarily informative – who, what, when, where, and why – you have a lot of room in the quotes you provide for elevating Community Values.
Heartland Presidential Forum Challenges Candidates:
How can we embrace community values?
News Release
DES MOINES – Ten presidential candidates will gather at Hy Vee Hall on Saturday, December 1 to answer Iowans’ questions about community issues ranging from health care and education to social justice and factory farming. Organizers, who expect an audience of over 5,000, say the theme of the debate, “Community Values,” is meant to focus candidates’ attention on the idea that the common good is too often overlooked in favor of individual interests.
“These core issues are important to Iowans,” said XXXX. “And it’s important that we focus on solving the challenges they present through the lens of community and the common good. When we think of how we’re stronger together, how we solve our problems more effectively when we’re all involved in the process, we all come out ahead.”
[Event details]
“Community values are such an obvious fit for Iowans,” said XXXX. “We look out for each other here, and we resist the politics of isolation that tell us that we have to solve societal problems on our own. Whether it’s health care or the environment, we’re going to do this together, with a positive role for government, and leave no one behind.”
[Continued details]
“We became involved in this event because of its focus on community,” said XXXX. “There’s a lot of lip service to valuing community, but we wanted to force candidates to explain what that really means to each of them on a policy level. We need more policies of connection that recognize how we’re all in this together, and draw on our collective strength. So we’re actively rejecting the “go it alone” approach to policy.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
