disrupting narratives of social exclusion for immigrant...

Disrupting Narratives of Social Exclusion for Immigrant Children & YouthCarola Suárez-OrozcoMarcelo Suárez-OrozcoRobert Teranishi

UCLA — Institute for Immigration, Globalization, & Education 1041 Moore Hall � Box 951521 � Los Angeles � CA 90095-1521 � (310) 206-9820 � [email protected]

© 2016 Institute for Immigration, Globalization, & Education

A REPORT FOR THE FORD FOUNDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project was made possible with funding from the Ford Foundation. We wish to thank Adam Strom (from Facing History and Ourselves), Minas Michikyan, Janet Cerda, Olivia Osei-Twumasi, Edwin Hernández, & Cynthia Alcantar for their thoughtful feedback to iterations of this Report.

Disrupting Narratives of Social Exclusion for Immigrant Children & Youth

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Framing Immigration in a Global Perspective 2 Immigrant Children & Youth 3 Immigrant Narratives across Time & Space 3 What are the Predominant Concerns about Immigrants Today? 5-8 Immigration, “Illegality,” Crime & Terror 5 Economic Malaise 6 Concerns about Integration 6 Stereotypes, Prejudice, & Discrimination 8 Implications for Immigrant Origin Children & Youth 10-11 Striving to Influence the “Persuadables” 11 How are Minds Changed? 12-13 Speaking to Both “Brains” 12 Bridging the Empathy Gap 13 Effective Counter-Narrative Strategies 14-16 Anti-immigrant Sentiment 14 Educating Against Racism and Prejudice 16 Changing Minds with the Power of Media 16-20 Film 17 Short Videos 18 Photos 19 Social Media 20 Summary 21-22 Call to Action 23 References 23-29


2

Framing Immigration in a Global Perspective

All continents are involved in the mass movement of people: as areas of immigration,

emigration, or transit, and often, as all three at once. In the 21st century, immigration is the

human face of globalization: the sounds, colors, and aromas of a miniaturized,

interconnected, and fragile world. During the second decade of the 21st century, 244 million

people are international migrants (or 3.3% of the world’s population),1 approximately 750

million are internal migrants,2 and millions more are immediate relatives left behind.3 Only

China (1.36 billion) and India (1.28 billion) have larger populations than today’s “immigration

nation.”4

Since the dawn of the millennium, the world has been witnessing a rapid rise in the numbers

of a plurality of migrants —involuntary, internal or international, authorized or unauthorized,

environmental refugees, and victims of human trafficking. These flows have intensified under

the ascendancy of globalization, growing inequality, rachitic and collapsing states, war and

terror, and climate change. Catastrophic migrations pose new international risks to millions of

migrants and challenge the institutions of sending, transiting, and receiving nations. Although

immigration is normative, it has taken a dystopic turn. Worldwide, civil and ethnic wars,

structural violence, environmental cataclysms, and growing inequality are behind the largest

displacement of people since World War II. Of the over 60 million forcefully displaced, half

are children.

The United States (U.S.), much of Western Europe, as well as newly industrialized countries

such as Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, and others5 are being changed and

challenged by mass migration. The U.S. leads the world in the number of immigrants.

Currently, 45.0 million people (or approximately 14%) residing in the U.S., are foreign born.6

In the year 2065, the U.S. is projected to have an estimated 78 million immigrants. Immigrants

in the U.S. today arrive from every continent on earth. The latest data tell a dynamic story:

Asians now surpass Latinos among those who have been in the U.S. for five years or less.

After peaking in the early 2000s, Latino immigration is now at its lowest level in 50 years. New

immigration from the Caribbean now exceeds all new immigration from Europe. The number

of new immigrants from “Africa grew 41% from 2000 to 2013, a sharper rise than for other

major groups.”6 Demographic projections suggest that by 2065, the U.S. will be the first

major advanced post-industrial society in history to become minority-majority – already a

demographic reality in many states including California.6


3

Immigrant Children and Youth

In the U.S., immigration is both history and destiny: it is how the country came to be in the

present form and it is the future. The children of immigrants are the fruit borne of

immigration.7 Twenty-five percent of children under the age of 18, a total of 18.7 million

children, have an immigrant parent. Their growth has been rapid—in 1970 the population of

immigrant origin children stood at 6% of the total population of children. It reached 20% by

2000, and is projected to increase to 33% by 2050.8 The transition of these children to

citizenship, to the labor market, and to the narrative of the nation will deeply shape the future

of our nation.

The majority of the children of immigrants are born in the U.S. of foreign-born parents.9 They

are U.S. citizens; though approximately a quarter are growing up in the shadows of

sanctioned immigration status.10 The most recent estimates suggest that 4.5 million U.S.-born

children younger than 18 years old are living in the U.S. with at least one parent who is an

unauthorized migrant. Altogether, about 7% of all school-aged children in the U.S. have at

least one parent who is in the U.S. without authorization. Though many of these children

demonstrate extraordinary resilience in the face of exceptional odds, they also face particular

challenges and risks.11

Immigrant Narratives across Time and Space

Immigration engenders ambivalence. The memes embodied in cognitive schemas, socio-

emotional concerns, and cultural beliefs, shape attitudes towards immigration. So do the

state of the economy, perceptions about crime and terror, and ideas (and ideals) about

acculturation.12 Likewise, the deep historical echo that immigration has in the U.S., shapes our

attitudes about current migrations.

In contemporary society, particularly in the aftermath of Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino,

Boston, and 9/11, immigration has for some become associated with dysfunction,

balkanization, and terror. In a culture of fear, facts are high-jacked and stereotypes can take

center stage. The anti-immigrant meme lives in full daylight and is found in quotidian full-

throated pronouncements by the political class, in the press, and in social media. The

ambivalence and worries about immigration is notably less acute in public opinion data than

in the headlines, radio programming, and political debates. A 2015 survey suggests that half

of Americans believe that immigrants strengthen our society. Nonetheless, 34% worry that


4

immigrants are a threat to our customs and values, whereas the remaining 16% are

undecided on this issue. There are deep divisions beneath the surface by age, race, and

ethnicity. More than two-thirds of young adults (18-29) think that new immigrants strengthen

the country, whereas close to half of seniors (65 and older) believe that immigrants represent

a threat to our society. Further deep divisions occur by race and ethnicity, with 70% of Asian-

Pacific Islanders, 67% of Latinos and 56% of Black Americans believing that new immigrants

have a positive influence on American society. On the other hand, 40% of White Americans

believe that newcomers are a threat.13

Putting things into perspective, when it comes to immigration, Americans have always been

of two minds: while we tend to romanticize it looking backwards, we are ambivalent about it

in the here and now. Contemporary concerns resonate diachronically with sentiments in

earlier anti-immigration eras such as with growth of the Know-Nothing Party in the late 1840s

and 1850s, at the turn of the 19th century during the great migration wave, and in the

1990s.14,15,16,17 During the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Eastern European and

Italian immigrants were feared for bringing their anarchist and communist struggles to the

American homeland. In other eras, there were deep concerns about immigrant acculturation

and loyalty to the homeland. In WWI, German immigrants were forced to “bury” their

language, and WWII led to the internment of Japanese Americans.14 Similarly,

characterizations of immigrants align synchronically with sentiments now found throughout

Europe, including the U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, as well as South Africa and

elsewhere.5,18,19

Further, while some immigrant groups are favored, others are disparaged or feared. That is

true today and was true in the metaphorical yesterday. In the past, we feared Irish and Italian

immigrants and favored English.14 Today, Americans tend to hold more positive views of

Asians than of Latin Americans or immigrants from the Middle East: whereas 47% and 44%

report that Asian and European immigrants have a mostly positive impact on American

society, respectively, 37% and 39% report that immigrants from Latin America and the Middle

East have mostly a negative impact.6 Americans are particularly concerned with unauthorized

immigration and the perceived nexus between “illegal immigration” and terrorism, for

example. In February 2016, a Rasmussen poll found that 59% of likely voters believed that

stricter border controls should be the priority when it comes to immigration.20


5

What are the Predominant Concerns about Immigrants Today?

Immigration, “Illegality,” Crime, and Terror

As foreshadowed above, the most serious concern about immigration today is the fear that

immigrants are bringing crime and terror to the new country.6 Recent anti-immigrant rhetoric

by politicians has added fervor to this meme.21,22,23 Immigrants in general, and undocumented

immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, are depicted as “rapists” and “violent

criminals and murders,” whereas immigrants from the Middle East have been demonized as

“terrorists.”24 Donald Trump, for example, has called for a forced registry of Muslims in the

U.S. and for an immediate ban of further immigration of Muslims to the U.S.25 Similar anti-

immigrant sentiments are found throughout Europe and Africa.26 The recent explosive

growth in the numbers of new refugees flowing into Europe20 coupled with the Paris –

Brussels terrorist attacks have stoked anti-immigrant sentiments on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the U.S., immigration is routinely re-casted as “illegal immigration.” When adults were

asked what word came to mind when thinking about immigrants, about 12% used the word,

“illegal.”6 A recent Gallup poll revealed that unauthorized immigration ranks in the top dozen

major national concerns.27 Indeed, the idea of “illegal” immigration seems incommensurable

with our national secular religion revering the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of

law. Framing immigration along the legal-illegal axis recasts many immigrants as inherent

criminals whose very presence affronts basic American values of individual responsibility and

the rule of law.

The propagation of the anti-immigrant meme, and the concurring increase in hate speech

and violence towards immigrants are a part and parcel of a new culture of intolerance and

prejudice, now living in full daylight on both sides of the Atlantic. Dehumanizing immigrants

and stigmatizing the children of immigrants threatens and further tears the fabric of the

nation.21 Anti-immigrant narratives depicting new arrivals as criminals, drug dealers, human

traffickers, and terrorists are also on the rise in Europe, South Africa, and elsewhere.5 While

the power of this meme is extraordinary, it is largely data free: the preponderance of

evidence suggests that immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than

comparable samples of non-immigrants.28


6

Economic Malaise

Opinion polls demonstrate that immigrants are now viewed as an economic burden. They are

said to take jobs away from their native-born counterparts, depress wages, and exhaust social

services.5,6 In the U.S., 50% of adults recently reported that immigrants are making the

economy worse.6 Immigration is blamed for either causing or aggravating the unemployment

problem. In the U.S., a common charge is that immigrants do not pay taxes and do not

contribute to Social Security;29 yet they benefit from public services such as public education,

welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. The charge that immigrants hurt the economy, depress

wages and abuse basic social services is, again, contrary to the empirical evidence. Indeed,

the preponderance of evidence suggests that immigrants represent a moderate net surplus in

a variety of economic indicators.12 What is historically true is the tight correlation between

economic downturns and anti-immigrant sentiments; when there is a difficult economic

situation, immigrants serve as ready scapegoats in times of crisis. 30 Similar economic

concerns are echoed in France and much of the rest of Western Europe,19 in Australia, South

Africa and elsewhere. The high rates of unemployment among the second generation across

the globe, especially in Europe, add concerns about the long-term prospects of new

immigrants.

Concerns about Integration

On both sides of the Atlantic, immigrants are feared for weakening social cohesion, diluting

cultural mores, self-segregation, worsening economic woes, and for disloyalty and terror.19 In

the U.S. a recent survey found that 34% of American adults reported that immigrants are

making social and moral values worse.6 In Europe, there are growing concerns over so-called

“no-go zones,” such as the infamous banlieues in Paris, and the ghettoes in Brussels, where

youth alienation, unemployment, crime, and self-radicalization are creating new pipelines to

global and domestic terror. In the U.S., there are isomorphic concerns that immigrants, from

Latin America in particular, refuse to learn English and self-segregate in co-ethnic ghettoes

where the second generation gravitate towards the underground economy, drug trafficking,

and gang culture. Similar anti-immigrant narratives centering on self-segregation, lack of

English language acquisition, and the flourishing of countercultural criminal gangs are echoed

in the U.K.19

Yet, other concerns center on questions of transnational ties and the unwillingness to fully

invest and integrate into the new society. Many immigrants are said to fail to become fully


7

engaged citizens. When they become citizens, they are accused of taking on citizenship for

mere instrumental purposes (e.g. for economic benefits or welfare).19,31 Accusations of divided

loyalties also center on the practice of sending remittances to family members remaining in

the home country.32 These fears over divided loyalties are reminiscent of the fretting of the

Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s over the untrustworthiness of Irish, German, and Italian

immigrants said to follow slavishly the commands of their Roman Pope.

In the U.S., there has been a deep and reoccurring concern with every wave of non-English

speaking immigrants about linguistic integration. Benjamin Franklin famously ruminated that

Germans would “never adopt our Language or Customs”33 and similar concerns were voiced

during the last great wave of migration about Eastern Europeans and Italians.14,34 Yet, at every

turn, while immigrants initially maintained their home language, their children inevitably

gravitated to English, and over time, gave up the language of their parents turning the U.S.

into a “cemetery for languages.”35 Over the last quarter century, there is a palpable concern

about the flourishing of the Spanish language in the U.S.; leading to a number of English-

Only ballot initiatives in several states. Yet again, these concerns are empirically misplaced.

Furthermore, they ignore the considerable linguistic, cognitive, and cultural advantages of

bilingualism.36

While language in the U.S. has been a primary symbolic integration preoccupation, in Europe,

the overarching concern involves religion (specifically Islam) and social practices (such as

arranged marriages, female genital cutting, and headscarves)—all said to be

incommensurable with European ideals of gender equality, autonomy, and individual

choice.37 In the aftermath of the London, Paris, and Brussels attacks, the aforementioned

concerns pale in comparison to the worries of the descendants of immigrants reeking jihadist

havoc throughout Europe.38

In short order, on both sides of the Atlantic, immigration has gone from a state of “benign

neglect” to mild annoyance, to intense concern and apprehension, and, more recently, to

panic.20 Growing inequality and economic stagnation along with the crisis of unauthorized

immigration and home-grown terrorism have aligned into a perfect storm. The long-term

demographic changes add to these deepening concerns. In an experimental study comprised

of 98 White Americans from all regions of the country, researchers found that when

participants were told that White Americans would no longer be the majority in the U.S., they

became more reluctant to embrace diversity.39

At a time when nearly all demographic growth moving forward will be via the children of


8

immigrants, both in the U.S. and throughout Europe, the current immigration malaise

threatens the fabric of the nation, subverts the remaking of the social contract, undermines

economic vitality, puts millions of immigrant-origin children at risk, and is antithetical to

fundamental democratic ideals and elemental notions of social justice. Immigrants and their

children are here – on both sides of the Atlantic – to stay. Their future is our future. Thus,

changing minds about immigration is an urgent exigency of our times.

We next, turn to considering the role of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in shaping

opinions, its implications on immigrant-origin children and youth, as well as its consequences

for civic society. We also discuss what we can do to change hearts and minds and public

discourse in this area.

Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination

Social science has established that stereotyping and categorization are normative, inborn

automatic processes.40,41,42,43 These automatic processes are further driven by socialization and

cultural memes.41 Stereotyping and categorization serve as short-hand strategies to simplify

complex and frequent social encounters. These cognitive strategies can “apportion both

opportunity and privilege [to in-groups] and cruelty and misery [to out-groups].”42 Prejudice is

an unfavorable, biased attitude based on “prejudgment and minimal information.”

Stereotypes are often made up of quick appraisals based on minimal knowledge that

exaggerate group differences. How out-groups are perceived is in large part driven by two

dimensions—the warmth one feels towards a particular group and the perceived competence

of its members. These stereotypes in turn lead to forms of emotional appraisals (prejudice).

The Figure below illustrates these concepts, well developed by Susan Fiske and colleagues.


9

Stereotyping (cognitive) and prejudice (evaluative) are distinct from discrimination, which is an

acted upon behavior.44 Biases can be explicit and conscious, but are also implicit and below

conscious thought.40 Implicit bias is widespread and is both cognitively and quantitatively

measurable; this form of bias can be difficult to change simply because people are unaware

of these biases and tend to disassociate from them.44 Bias, stereotyping cognitions and

prejudicial attitudes are related, and can lead to discriminatory and exclusionary acts towards

marginalized out-groups.

Every society, across history, stigmatizes designated groups, separating “us” from “them.”45

As the anthropologist Boas has observed, “a stratification of society in social groups that are

racial in character will always lead to racial discrimination”.46 As in all other “sharp social

groupings the individual is not judged as an individual but as a member of his class.”46

Racialized hierarchies cluster people of “purer” origin to avoid the danger of contamination

by outsiders.47 As applied to immigrants, “racialization” is an appropriate construct

foregrounding the socio-historical processes of segregation, marginalization, micro- and

macro-aggressions, and collective disenfranchisement.48,49,50 In countries such as the U.S.,

large and growing numbers of poor immigrants of color and the undocumented, are de facto

and de jure relegated to spaces where socially constructed phenotype51,52 aligns with

entrenched patterns of segregation and marginalization of native minorities.53,54,55 Portes and

Zhou have termed this dynamic as “segmented assimilation” wherein certain immigrants join

the marginalized space of native minorities creating what they term a new “rainbow

underclass.”56 Other countries also experience the complex interweaving of factors racializing

immigrants and other minorities. These can include religion (Europe and its North African

minorities), country of origin (Japan and its Korean and other minorities), and social class

(Spain and its Roma minority).

In every such context, majority group members, as well as members of the society who do


10

not belong to the stigmatized group, may share negative stereotypes about the stigmatized

group. These are typically linked to prejudicial attitudes. These attitudes and biases have

historically legitimized discriminatory practices related to employment, education, and

housing; in addition to highly constrained life chances and segregation.40, 41, 43, 45 In most

societies, over the past few decades, there has been a movement against blatant and active

forms of exclusionary discrimination and some pro-active legislative protections have been

put into place.40,57 Nonetheless, more passive and subtle forms of implicit bias have remained

stubbornly intractable.57 For example, some groups, like African American men in the U.S.

and Muslim men in Europe have continued to be marginalized in the labor market and in the

criminal justice system. Further, in recent months, with the growing refugee crisis in Europe

and the political season in the U.S., we have seen an increase in vitriolic, overtly stated biased

rhetoric against immigrants.58,59

The consequences of exclusion for those who are targeted include the obvious loss of

opportunity that has lifelong consequences not only to the individual but also to their

children.60,61 There are also well-documented implications for compromised health.40,43,45,62 The

ongoing stress of discrimination and social exclusion is also linked to anxiety, depression,

trauma, and anger.40,43,45,63 There are also worrisome implications of the “burgeoning

inequality gap for the cultural fabric.”40

Implications for Immigrant Origin Children & Youth

When large swaths of our society begin to loudly and proudly proclaim exclusionary

messages, this creates a climate of national hatred and xenophobia. While our national

creation myth is one of immigrant travails and triumphs, we are currently facing a social

climate where many quickly forget their grandparents’ experience, feel no compunction

about pulling up the ladder behind them, and demonize those who are newly arrived.58

Exclusionary messages towards immigrant-origin children and youth matter for several

reasons. First, it matters because it is linked to poor psychological and physical outcomes.40

Being a member of a disparaged group is simply bad for mental and physical well-being.

Second, it creates a context of development where parents and families can be expelled, and

when even the most basic of services can be self-righteously denied, which contributes to a

growing opportunity gap. Third, it sends clear signals of who belongs and who does not,

undermining our youngest new-Americans’ sense of social belonging and identity. Given that

currently a quarter of all children growing up in the U.S. are the children of immigrants (and


11

that is projected to be a third by 2050) this is a not an inconsequential number of young

children and youth to consider.

Lastly, this kind of public climate has serious ramifications for our own sense of national unity.

At a time of extraordinary demographic shift, our society needs to foster cohesive social

relations, strengthening the bonds of solidarity between new and more established

Americans.64 We need to disrupt the narratives of exclusion and division, and nurture

practices of inclusion and shared membership in the family of the nation.

Striving to Influence the “Persuadables”

The public mind can be quite fickle—particularly for those who have not given much thought

to an issue.65 There are always, of course, individuals who are strongly decided one way or

another on an issue and are unlikely to shift opinion through the introduction of rhetoric or

popular discourse. Many “persuadables,” however, will change opinion according to

exposure to public discourse or convincing rhetoric.65

The topic of immigration “sits at the edge of [most Americans’] peripheral vision;”66 it comes

in and out of focus. When in focus, it is obscure at best, and is often contentious, with 51% of

Americans reporting that immigration strengthens the nation, and 41% saying that it hurts it.6

The question is how to reach the “moveable middle”67 or unentrenched persuadables, who

may not have reflected much on the topic of immigration because of lack of exposure,

information, or deep reflection about the issue. How do we reach these persuadables with

counter-narratives that present a compelling account?


12

How are Minds Changed?

To change minds (and in turn behaviors), research by Stanford and Duke professors, Chip and

Dan Heath suggests several important strategies. Messages are more likely to “stick” in the

minds of audiences when they are understandable and memorable.68 Providing too much

information and complexity in the delivery of the message impedes its delivery.68 Messages

should be kept clear; relatedly, they should be tangible and concrete.68 Secondly, they should

be delivered in an unexpected manner that takes the audience somewhat by surprise; this will

create interest and hold attention.68 Providing credible information by a convincing expert is

also important; the audience must believe the raconteur delivering the information.65,69 Using

narrative storytelling devices is especially effective. Additionally, drawing upon emotional

appeals that make people care, drawing upon self-interest, and appealing to identity are

particularly effective.68 In turn, if the messages stick in people’s minds, they will be more likely

to change their behaviors.68

Speaking to Both “Brains”

In order to change minds, especially when an issue is a difficult one, it is important to engage

both the emotional and rational sides of our brains.70

In Thinking Fast & Slow, Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman speaks of two brains that are

often in conflict with one another.71 “System 1” is the automatic, intuitive, emotional brain,

while “System 2” is the deliberative, reasoning brain.71 Kahneman suggests that most people

think quickly, allowing their emotional brain to guide them.71 The intuitive emotional brain

tends to be gullible, suppresses ambiguity, and is over-confident in its assessments.71 He

proposes that it is important to slow down and use the more deliberative reasoning brain to

fully assess issues in making important decisions.71

Relatedly, Chip and Dan Heath suggest that in order to “switch” opinions and behaviors

under difficult circumstances, it is important to engage both the heart and the mind.70 The

“heart” serves to motivate change. It is essential to provide a narrative that emotionally

resonates and points to why change is essential and worthwhile. It is vital for individuals to

feel motivated and it is helpful for them to feel part of a collective identity. To engage the

mind several strategies are effective. “Bright spots” that have been effective and can be

replicated provide hope and strategies for change. Breaking down the steps to change into

small concrete steps makes the process logical and attainable. Explaining the whys behind


13

the specific strategies also engages the mind in the process.

It is important to note that all humans have both intuitive and rational minds. Some tend to

be swayed more consistently by one approach over another, while others are engaged by

different strategies at different times. An effective strategy to change attitudes on a

widespread basis therefore should engage both “facts” and appeal to “emotions” in order to

have the broadest possible reach.

Bridging the Empathy Gap

A potential way to break the pattern of stereotyping and prejudice is to minimize the distance

across perceived difference. A way to do this is by bridging the so called “empathy gap”

between “others” perceived to be substantively more different than they really are. J.D.

Trout, who has written extensively about bridging the empathy gap, defines empathy as the

capacity to accurately understand the position of others and to “feel this could happen to

me.”72

Daniel Goleman describes three variations of empathy73. The first cognitive form is the ability

to understand another’s point of view. This perspective taking capacity is important for

understanding but can be disconnected from an emotional or sympathetic link to the other

(as in the case of sociopaths). The next form of empathy is emotional—the kinesthetic

attunement to another’s emotional world or pain.73 This form of empathy is inborn in most

children across cultures (the so called Dali Llama neurons),74 but can be subject to sensory

overload or burnout. Lastly, there is “compassionate empathy” or “empathic concern” which

is linked to mobilization to do something constructive to help.74

There are a number of obstacles that impede tendencies concerning empathy towards others

different than us. One cultural obstacle that Trout describes is the American cultural myth of

“free will” and its corollaries: a) we get what we deserve and b) we have the power to

overcome all circumstances. In the U.S., wealth or poverty are explained by a cultural

narrative of rugged individualistic character rather than by luck as it is more likely to be in

Europe.72 In the U.S. context, therefore, it can be difficult to empathetically enact constructive

social policies that bridge across that difference.

Those who are in positions of greater power and privilege typically are less attuned to social

pain than those of lower status.75 Further, social empathy is state dependent such that those

who are psychologically aroused to anger tend to be less empathic.76 People are also less


14

readily able to empathize with groups that are significantly different than themselves, whom

they have placed in the “them” category.77,78 They are also more able to empathize with

individuals (even if they are members of a disparaged group) than they are with groups.78

Psychologically, it is critical that individuals are able to identify with the pain of the suffering

of the other.79 Typically, people underestimate social pain like ostracism and shame

experienced by others. In order to have people accurately assess interpersonal and

intrapersonal social pain, they need to have experienced some sort of social discomfort

themselves. The actual event of recalling having undergone a previous experience of social

pain can act as an empathetic bridge of understanding others’ experiences.

Effective Counter-Narrative Strategies

Aimed at Anti-Immigrant Sentiment

The Framework Institute has made a conscious effort to articulate the classic faulty patterns

of public thinking about immigrants in the U.S. A general unawareness about specificities is


15

clearly apparent as immigration is viewed as a “black box.” The Frameworks Institute notes

how immigrants are typically framed as “them” and rarely recognized as part of our shared

legacy as a “nation of immigrants.” Furthermore, the complexity of immigration policy and

the politics of gridlock have led to a sense of helplessness and fatalism about resolving these

issues.77

Frameworks suggests several key domains that should be a focus of efforts at effectively

changing the immigration narrative:

• Humanizing immigrants so they become recognized as more like “us” and less like

“them.”

• Articulating the credible evidence that immigration provides an economic opportunity

rather than an economic threat.

• Reframing the broken immigration system as one that is not solely a border problem.

In the old narrative, building a wall sounds like a sensible simple solution; in the new

narrative, streamlining and clarifying an outdated and ineffective immigration

processing system becomes the logical solution.

Frameworks suggests that narratives should lead with more humanistic rather than

contentious approaches; framing a moral argument emphasizing basic respect, treating

people with dignity and compassion, as well as highlighting shared histories. Proposed

solutions should be pragmatic and aimed at fixing a broken system to finally treat people

fairly. They also recommend framing a narrative that would result in a shared prosperity story

not a zero sum story.

The Frameworks Institute boils its message down to three basic messages. It focuses on

humanizing immigrants by reminding us that we are a nation of immigrants. It provides

counter-factuals around the “economic costs” of immigration highlighting the significant

shared benefits immigrants generate for our country. Lastly, the message makes a moral

argument around a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed in order to treat people

fairly. Thus, the Frameworks Institute template for changing the narrative about immigrants

incorporates many of the strategies for changing minds discussed above. Its message is sticky

in that it is clear, tangible and solutions oriented, and draws upon messages of self-interest.

As such, it has potential for a broad reach by engaging both facts and appealing to our moral

intuition and basic sense of fairness.


16

Educating Against Racism and Prejudice

Over the last forty years, Facing History and Ourselves80 has been providing professional

development to individual teachers, public, parochial, and private schools, as well as school

districts. This non-profit international educational organization’s mission is “to engage

students of diverse backgrounds in an examination of racism, prejudice, and antisemitism in

order to promote the development of a more humane and informed citizenry.”

Through rigorous historical analysis combined with the study of human behavior, Facing

History’s approach heightens students’ understanding of racism, antisemitism, religious

intolerance, and prejudice; increases students’ ability to relate history to their own lives; and

promotes greater understanding of their roles and responsibilities in a democracy. Over time,

the organization has developed many training modules from the rise of the Nazis and the

Holocaust as well as other examples of genocide and other examples of social dilemmas to

help “students make the essential connection between history and the moral choices they

confront in their own lives.” Their approach is evidence-based; demonstrating impact on

teachers’ capacity to create inclusive, respectful learning environments and to make the

curriculum relevant and engaging for students from diverse backgrounds; and impact on

students’ empathy, student engagement, critical thinking skills, as well as civic responsibility.

Facing History has been named by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning (CASEL) as only one of nine programs in the U.S. with proven positive effect on

academics, increased empathy, and on other prosocial behavior.

In recent years, Facing History and Ourselves has devoted attention to issues of

contemporary immigration, Islamophobia and increasing tolerance and understanding in

Europe through a project led by Adam Strom. The project produced resource materials and

professional development experiences for educators exploring what Facing History calls “civic

dilemmas”, including: Stories of Identity: Religion, Migration and Belonging in a Changing

World81 and What do we do with a Difference: France and the Debate over Headscarves in

Schools.82 Last year, Facing History produced a teaching guide for the film “I Learn America”

in collaboration with New York public schools83 (see below). Increasing understanding, as well

as providing a historical perspective and response to newcomers, is a topic to which the

organization is turning increasing energies – domestically and internationally.

Changing Minds with the Power of Media There are myriad ways in which media or mass communication molds signs to convey a

message that may change the minds of a constituency.84 Visual images such as photography


17

or film transmit culture by what they show, how they show it, and the emotions they stir.

Interactive media or interactivity (i.e., the interaction of two or more parties communicating

through an ongoing give and take of messages) affords audiences a certain degree of control

over online and offline content. And, social media (i.e., the intersection of technology, social

interaction, and information sharing) employs a dialogic model of many-to-many

communication that involves participatory production (i.e., data anyone can access and

curate). These forms of communication convey what people think, feel, and like and dislike

and as such may be used to know and understand what different groups of people may think

about a given subject. The cultural collage of imagery, frames the way messages are

communicated and can influence producers and consumers’ attitudes and actions.85

Film. Film can be a very powerful vehicle to shift perspectives. There are numerous

examples of films that bring the experience of immigrants into the gaze of those who have

not had that experience or who have had the experience a generation ago, or from a place of

privilege or from a distinct cultural vantage point. An inclusive list is beyond the scope of this

report but include: El Norte; The Namesake; Dirty Pretty Things; The Joy Luck Club; Under

the Same Moon; Documented; The Visitor; among many others.

The film, I Learn America,86 directed and produced by Jean Michel-Dissard and Gitte Peng,

is not only a powerful empathic vehicle for understanding newly arrived immigrant

adolescents and their experiences, but also an exemplar of how film can be used to foster

meaningful community dialogues. Filmed in one of the International Schools in Brooklyn, it

follows five very different newcomer youth over the course of a year as they transition into

their new school and new land.

Youth who immigrate in early adolescence face particular challenges, as they must contend

with coping with two sets of transitions—those of adolescence along with those of migration.

They must figure out who they are, who they love, and how they fit in, all the while learning a

new language and adapting to the social expectations of the new society. And, they must do

this with parents who, while bringing their own strengths, often do not have social compasses

that are calibrated to the new land, creating extra sets of tensions.

There are so many ways to view, experience, and interpret I Learn America. At its core, the

film is a narrative about relationships and growth. It can be taken as a lesson in how to

viscerally begin to understand the frustration, disempowerment, and even anger that come

with an inability to speak English and express oneself, and in contrast, the freedom that


18

comes with the eventual gift of newfound communication. The viewer can learn about the

multiple concurrent roles that newcomers must juggle—student, worker, and responsible

family caretaker. It bears witness to two very different forms of undocumented status and how

it complicates the lives of students in immeasurable ways.

It is also a film that has lessons to teach us about an exemplary model of teaching and

learning (at one of the International Schools), and epitomizes strategic ways to welcome

newcomers and ready them to enter colleges in their new society.

While the story is a quintessential New York immigrant story, the relevance for other contexts

is obvious. The film was developed into a viewer’s guide with consultation by Carola Suárez-

Orozco and by Facing History and Ourselves and has been adopted by New York public

schools as part of its professional development training. Further, Jean Michel-Dissard has

taken the film all over the country and the world to stimulate inter-group community

conversations between student groups and teachers as well as administrators and their

students as a way to bridge the empathy gap87 Below is one of many examples of a class

project, from a Los Angeles classroom, that was inspired after viewing the film:

2016 Living History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQky_y45pp0

Short Videos. Short videos have become a new norm, particularly on the Internet.

They are brief yet informative, and can be powerful (see Ilhaam Awees story).88 The average

length of Facebook videos, for example, range from 24 seconds to 90 seconds.89 It serves as

a reminder that individuals interested in shifting perspectives on social issues need to

communicate their message quickly and with the use of the Internet. A recent Pew report

indicated that about 56% of Internet users either create or post original photos or videos

online, or curate or take photos/videos that they have found online and share them with many

people. The creators tend to be younger whereas the curators tend to be women and

younger adults.90 A popular online platform for short videos is YouTube as it enables users to

easily find, upload, and share videos. YouTube is particularly popular among Blacks and

Latinos.91 In general, people are increasingly using YouTube to share news-related videos and

other content relating to social issues—for example, perceptions about race and ethnicity,92,93

and terrorism.94 These short videos are effective ways to communicate between the like-

minded and provide effective pathways to bridge the empathy gap. Examples include:


19

A Conversation with Latinos on Race The New York Times OP-DOCS: Season 5 by Joe Blewster, Blair Foster, & Michèle Stephenson http://graphics8.nytimes.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004237305 A Conversation with Asian Americans on Race The New York Times OP-DOCS: Season 5 by Geeta Gandhbir & Michèle Stephenson http://graphics8.nytimes.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004308529 Dutch Children Apologize for Terrorism Zouka Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYyN1I5IF8E&feature=youtu.be

Photos. Visual images evoke powerful emotions in viewers. The unimaginable

suddenly enters the realm of reality. From an anthropological perspective, visual images,

elements of visual ethnography, help to understand the nuanced experiences of people’s

lived experience – particularly relevant to issues surrounding immigrants and refugees.95 Two

examples of a particularly powerful body of photographic work in this area is that of Sebastião

Salgado entitled, The Children: Refugees as well as The Migrants.96 One cannot help but to

be moved by looking into the eyes of these children from all over the world. Additionally,

photo journalists with their professional cameras as well as ordinary people with their mobile

devices across the world continue to document events and, at times, stream them live online

with the affordances of social media. Evocative images like the ones above, both move both

hearts and minds in highly effective ways 97


20

Social Media. Social media have become ubiquitous in children’s and young

adults’ lives. As of 2015, 90% of U.S. young adults between the ages of 18-29 years and 71%

of adolescents ages 13-17 years use social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat,

and Twitter.98,99,100 Much of this use is facilitated by having access to social media via mobile

devices – including mobile phones, laptops, and tablets. In fact, 73% of 13- to 17-year olds

have access to a smartphone and 58% have access to a tablet;100 more than half of

adolescents (56%) report using mobile devices daily to go online.98 Young people are not

merely influenced by their digital world; they are the creators – actively and interactively

constructing and reconstructing their identities and often challenging and transforming

cultural norms via the use of such digital technologies and media such as Facebook,

YouTube, Twitter, and blogs.

As young people master these digital tools and features, many harness their enthusiasm for

using social media in the service of civic participation. Participatory politics via social media

may be a central and complementary means via which young people are interactively

exerting voice and influence on social and political issues.101 For instance, young people may

be using digital tools such as social media to blog, share political news and perspectives, or

create and mobilize their peers for a political or social cause.102 There are numerous models

that exemplify how young people use online platforms to participate, contribute, challenge,

and disrupt the national ethos about immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity. Two recent

and notable examples from recent social media campaigns include:

• DefineAmerican.com103 Using the power of stories, Define American calls on

Americans – undocumented and allies – to shift dialogue around immigrants,

identity, and citizenship in America

• #EmergingUS104 Similarly, #EmergingUS is a medium with compilations of

original videos, essays, articles, and infographics that bring to life the very

stories that have, for too often, been ignored, dismissed, and demeaned in the

mainstream media.105

• FWD.us106 is a technology-based community that allows individuals such as

engineers, entrepreneurs, and others to come together to tell their stories and

mobilize in an effort to create meaningful political reform. It is a platform that

recognizes that immigrants contribute to our communities and economy.

• Immigrant Voter107 is a grassroots organization online platform that calls on

voters and allies from diverse backgrounds to stand with political candidates

who recognize the contributions of immigrants to the economy, culture, and


21

other domains of society, and stand against mass deportation. Voters pledge

their support by including their email and zip code.

In the age of hyperconnectivity and instant communication, young people are consuming

messages and exerting voice via status updates (comments that express one’s thoughts and

feelings), wall posts (comments or messages posted on people’s social media profile), tweets

(publically visible messages delivered to followers; often using a hashtag “#”), and memes

(visuo-textual messages that capture an idea), to name a few.

• For instance, BuzzFeed has become one of the most popular digital platforms in

2015 with over 81% of users between the ages 18-34.108 BuzzFeed produces daily

content, often including brief videos of breaking news, entertainment, and videos

that often go “viral” circulating rapidly and widely. Sharing brief but personal

videos to a large audience is well suited for youth who want relevant and instant

information.109 This instant consumption and circulation is also reflected in memes

people create and share on social media. These can be short, yet powerful images

with texts. Here are examples of BuzzFeed stories110 and memes related to

immigration (see examples below).

In Summary

♦ Immigration engenders ambivalence. This has been the case historically. It is also true

cross-culturally, especially in times of economic crisis, and when there are deep

cultural divisions. Across time, contexts, and groups, stereotypes about crime and

terror, burdens to economic wellbeing, and unwillingness or inability to integrate are

recurring themes despite prevailing evidence to the contrary. ♦ Shared negative stereotypes about the stigmatized groups are linked to prejudicial

attitudes. These attitudes and biases have historically legitimized discriminatory acts

related to employment, education, and housing and highly constrained life chances. In

addition, more subtle forms of implicit bias remain particularly intractable. Further,


22

with the growing refugee crisis in Europe and the electoral campaign cycle in the U.S.,

hyperbolic forms of xenophobia have been on the rise. ♦ Exclusionary messages towards immigrant-origin children and youth matter for several

reasons. They are linked to poor psychological and physical outcomes and contribute

to a growing opportunity gap. It sends clear signals of who belongs and who does

not, undermining our youngest new-Americans’ sense of social belonging and

identity. When a quarter of all children growing up in the U.S. are of immigrant origin,

the costs of such exclusion are high. Lastly, this kind of public climate has serious

ramifications for our own sense of national unity and destiny. ♦ We must strive to change minds of the “unentrenched persuadables”. Effective

strategies should include: o Developing “sticky” messages that are clear, tangible, credible, and draw

upon narratives as well as self interest; o Speaking to “both sides of the brain” by engaging both facts and appealing to

emotions will have the broadest reach; o Working to reach across the empathy gap by minimizing the differences

between “them and us” is an important strategy. Cognitive approaches that

develop perspective-taking capacities are one step. Another works on the

emotional side that develops kinesthetic attunement. To avoid sensory

overload it is important to provide strategies for mobilization in which to

harness the energies of compassionate empathy. At the end the message

should be: “We have met the immigrant – it is us.” ♦ Harnessing the power of new media in its myriad forms – from film, to photography,

to social media, and even videogames, has extraordinary potential to bridge the

empathy gap and change minds. These are modalities that should be thoughtfully

engaged and carefully curated across educational venues, after-school programs,

community based organizations, religious organizations, and civic engagement

programs. New media, thoughtfully curated and well harnessed, has the potential to

bring change to scale. ♦ Community partnerships, bringing together a range of promising practices and actors

can serve as models for how active community members can be agents for change

and leaders in developing strategies for strong, inclusive communities. While every

setting will need to be locally adapted, these “bright spots” can serve as models for

change and hope across spaces facing similar changes.


23

A Call to Action There are 18.7 million children born to immigrant parents, representing 25 percent of the U.S.

population under the age of 18. The children of immigrants are central to how we must think

about our nation’s future. The pathways to success for immigrant origin youth, their psycho-

social flourishing, their civic engagement, their connection to the labor market, and their

identification with the narrative of the nation will profoundly shape the remaking of the social

contract. These pathways will be critical to the trajectory of our nation’s democracy for

generations to come.

In this report, we offer a framework for disrupting narratives of social exclusion for immigrant

youth. We are hopeful that this framing can be used to build evidence that can initiate new,

positive, and forward-looking perspectives on the potential of immigrant youth. Moving

forward, UCLA in partnership with the Ford Foundation endeavors to build and sustain local

networks of community based groups; schools, universities, NGOs, and others committed to

addressing the economic, educational, and political needs of immigrant communities, to

strengthen capacity for youth engagement and align their efforts with other social movements

that resonate with immigrant youth. With no clear pathway to immigration reform, the time is

now to develop a sustainable effort to place immigrant youth at the center of how we think

about the future of our nation.

References

1 United Nations. (2016, January 10). International migration 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/wallchart/docs/MigrationWallChart2015.pdf

2 The World Bank. (2016, January 10). Migration, remittances, diaspora and development. Retrieved from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/0,,contentMDK:21924020~menuPK:204920~pagePK:5105988~piPK:360975~theSitePK:214971,00.html

3 Papademetriou, D. G. (2005). The global struggle with illegal migration: No end in sights. Migration Policy Report. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/global-struggle-illegal-migration-no-end-sight

4 Suárez-Orozco, M. M., Louie, V. S., & Suro, R. (2011). Writing immigration: Scholars and journalists in dialogue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.


24

5 Danso, R., & McDonald, D. A. (2001). Writing xenophobia: Immigration and the print media in post-apartheid

South Africa. Africa Today, 48(3), 115-137.

6 Pew Hispanic Center. (2015). Modern immigration wave brings 59 million to U.S., driving population growth and change through 2065: Views of immigration’s impact on U.S. society mixed. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/

7 Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

8 Suárez-Orozco, C., Abo-Zena, M., & Kerivan-Marks, A. (2015). (Eds.). Transitions: The development of the children of immigrants. New York, NY: New York University Press.

9 Child Trends. (2013). Immigrant children: Indicators on children and youth. Washington, DC: Author. www.childtrends.org/?indicators=immigrant-children

10 Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, Y., Teranishi, R., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Living in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Education Review, 81(3) 438-472.

11 Yoshikawa, H., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Gonzales, R. (in press). Consensus statement for the Society on Research on Adolescence on unauthorized status and youth development in the U.S. Journal of Research on Adolescence.

12 Waters, M.C., & Gerstein Pineau. (Eds.). (2015). The integration of immigrants into American society. Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press.

13 Jones, R.P, Cox, D., Cooper, B., Lienesch, R. (2016). How Americans view immigrants, and what they want from immigration reform: Findings from the 2015 American Atlas. Washington, DC: Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved from http://publicreligion.org/research/2016/03/survey-how-americans-view-immigrants-and-what-they-want-from-immigration-reform-findings-from-the-2015-american-values-atlas/#.VwvO7PHoxNE

14 Higham, J. (2002). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860-1925. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

15 Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2009). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16 Gerber, D. A. (2011). American immigration: a very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

17 Ngai, M. M. (2014). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

18 Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

19 Ten myths about immigration. (2014). The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/ten-myths-migration-europe

20 Rasumussen Reports. (2016). Immigration update: Border controls still top priority for most voters. Retrieved from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/immigration_update

21 Ortiz, G. (2015). Timeline: Trump’s racial demagoguery is having dangerous, real-life consequences. Retrieved from http://americasvoice.org/blog/a-timeline-trumps-racial-demagoguery-is-having-dangerous-real-life-consquences/


25

22 Quist-Arcton, O. (2015). South Africa’s xenophobic attacks ‘vile,’ says Zulu king accused of inciting them.

National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2015/04/26/402400958/south-africas-xenophobic-attacks-vile-says-zulu-king-accused-of-inciting-them

23 Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016). Hatewatch Headlines. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/03/17/hatewatch-headlines-3172016

24 Moreno, C. (2015). 9 outrageous things Donald Trump has said about Latinos. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

25 Gabriel, T. (2015). Donald Trump says he’s absolutely require Muslims to register. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/?_r=0.

26 Brown, R. L. (2015). Behind the murderous anti-immigrant rage in South Africa. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/20/behind-the-murderous-anti-immigrant-rage-in-south-africa.html

Daoud, K. (2015). Black in Algeria? Then you’d better be Muslim. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/opinion/kamel-daoud-black-in-algeria-then-youd-better-be-muslim.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

27 McCarthy, J. (2015). In the U.S. Worries about terrorism, race relations up sharply. The Gallup Poll. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/182018/worries-terrorism-race-relations-sharply.aspx

28 Ewing, W. A., Martínez, D.E., & Rumbaut, R. (2015). The criminalization of immigration in the United States. Washington DC: American Immigration Council. Retrieved from http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf

29 Suárez-Orozco, M., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2012). Immigration in the age of global vertigo. In O. Santa Ana, & C. González-Bustamante, C. (Eds.), Arizona firestorm: Global immigration realities. (pp. 253-276). National Media, and Provincial Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

30 Espenshade, T. J., & Belanger, M. (1998). Immigration and public opinion. In M. Suárez-Orozco, (Ed.), Crossings: Mexican immigration in interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2008). Immigration myths and facts. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/myths_facts_jan2008.pdf

32 Martin, P. L. (1994). United States: Benign neglect towards immigration. In W. A. Cornelius, P. L. Martin, and J. F. Hollifield, (Eds.), Controlling Immigration: A global perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

33 Franklin, Benjamin. (1751). Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.

34 Simon, R. J. (1985). Public opinion and the immigrant: Print media coverage, 1880-1980. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

35 Lieberson, S., Dalto, G., & Johnston, M. E. (1975). The course of mother-tongue diversity in nations. American Journal of Sociology, 34-61.

36 Callahan, R., & Gándara, P. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the US labor market. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.


26

37 Vikkan, U. (2007). Rethinking honor in regard to human rights: An educational imperative in troubled times. In

M. Suárez-Orozco, (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education. (pp. 272-290). Berkeley, CA: UC Press.

38 Morgan, G., & Poynting, S. (2012). Global Islamophobia: Muslims and moral panic in the West. Ashgate.

39 Danbold, F., & Huo, Y. J. (2015). No Longer “All-American”? Whites’ Defensive Reactions to Their Numerical Decline. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 210-218.

40 APA (2012). Dual pathways to a better America: Preventing discrimination & promoting diversity. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/promoting-diversity.aspx

41 Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

42 Berreby, D. (2008). Us and them: The science of identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

43 Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. E., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

44 Jones, J.M. (1997). Prejudice & racism (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

45 Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.

46 Boas, F. (1940). Race, language and culture. London, U.K.: Collier-Macmillan.

47 Mosse, G. L. (2000). The Jews: myth and counter-myth. In L. Back & J. Solomos (Eds.), Theories of racism: A reader (pp. 195–205). London, U.K.: Routledge. (Zollschan as cited in Mosse)

48 Bashi, V. (1998). Racial categories matter because racial hierarchies matter: A commentary. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 959-968.

49 Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.

50 Shih, S. M. (2008). Comparative racialization: An introduction. Modern Language Association (PMLA), 123(5), 1347-1362.

51 Gilman, S. L. (2000). Are Jews white? Or the history of the nose job. In L Back & J Solomos (Eds.), Theories of racism (pp. 229–237). London, U.K.: Routledge.

52 Bonilla-Silva, E. (2004). From bi-racial to tri-racial: Towards a new system of racial stratification in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(6), 931-950.

53 Corni, G. (2002). Hitler’s ghettos: Voices from a Beleaguered Society 1939–1944. London, UK: Arnold Publication.

54 Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-‐ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.

55 Vigil, J. D. (2002). A rainbow of gangs: Street cultures in the mega-city. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

56 Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74-96.

57 Pettigrew, T. F. (2006). A two-level approach to anti-immigrant prejudice and discrimination. In R. Mahalingam, (Ed.), Cultural psychology of immigrants (pp. 95-112). New York, NY: Routledge.

58 The Editorial Board. Trying to read Donald Trump, in translation. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/opinion/trying-to-read-mr-trump-in-translation.html

59 West, L (2016). What are Trump fans really ‘afraid’ to say? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/campaign-stops/what-are-trump-fans-really-afraid-to-say.html


27

60 Kieselbach, T., & Traiser, U. Long-term unemployment and the risk of social exclusion among young people in

Europe: Recommendations for activation policies. University of Bremen, Institute for Psychology of Work, Employment and Health Rep. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/g_ser_social_exclusion_kieselbach.pdf

61 Kieselbach, T. (2003). Long-term unemployment among young people: The risk of social exclusion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1-2), 69-76.

62 Broman, C. L. (1995). The health consequences of racial discrimination: a study of African Americans. Ethnicity & Disease, 6(1-2), 148-153

63 Brown, T. N., Williams, D. R., Jackson, J. S., Neighbors, H. W., Torres, M., Sellers, S. L., & Brown, K. T. (2000). “Being black and feeling blue”: The mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Race and Society, 2(2), 117-131

64 Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

65 Howell, W. G., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R., (2009). The persuadable public. Education Next, 9(4). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/persuadable-public/

66 Suro, R. (2009). “America’s view of immigration: The evidence from public opinion surveys.” In Migration, Public Opinion and Politics: The Transatlantic Council on Migration. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/americas-views-immigration-evidence-public-opinion-surveys

67 Dingeman-Cerda, K., Burciaga, E. M., & Martinez, L. M. (2016). Neither sinners nor saints: Complicating the discourse of noncitizen deservingness. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 9(3), 62-73.

68 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Random House.

69 Cialdini, R. B. (1984). The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Quill William Morrow.

70 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change when change is hard. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

71 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.

72 Trout, J. D. (2010). Why empathy matters: The science and psychology of better judgment. New York, NY: Penguin. (p. 21).

73 Goleman, D. (2007).: Three kinds of empathy cognitive, emotional, compassionate. Retrieved from http://www.danielgoleman.info/three-kinds-of-empathy-cognitive-emotional-compassionate/

74 Ramachandran, V. S. (2000). Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind “the great leap forward” in human evolution. Edge. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/conversation/mirror-neurons-and-imitation-learning-as-the-driving-force-behind-the-great-leap-forward-in-human-evolution

75 Handgraaf, M. J. J.; Van Dijk, E.; Vermunt, R. C.; Wilke, H. A. M.; De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95(5): 1136–1149.

76 Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 426-432.

77 O’Neil, M., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Bales, S.N. (2014). Finish the story on immigration: A FrameWorks MessageMemo. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Retrieved from http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/domestic_issues/Immigration_mm.pdf


28

78 Smith, E.R. & Mackie, D.M. 2005. Aggression, hatred, and other emotions. In J. F. Dovidio, P. E. Glick, & L. A.

Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 361-376). New York, NY: Blackwell Publishing.

79 Nordgren, L. F., Banas, K, & MacDonald, G. (2011). Empathy gaps for social pain: Why people underestimate the pain of social suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 120–128.

80 Facing History and Ourselves webpage Retrieved from https://www.facinghistory.org/about-us

81 Adam Strom (2009). Stories of identity: Religion, migration and belonging in a changing world. A facing history and ourselves publication. Retrieved from https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/default/files/publications/Stories-of-identity.pdf

82 Dan Eshet (2008). What Do We Do with a Difference?: France and the Debate over Headscarves in Schools. A Facing History and Ourselves Publication. Retrieved from https://www.facinghistory.org/books-borrowing/what-do-we-do-difference-france-and-debate-over-headscarves-schools

83 I Learn America Viewer’s Guide. A Facing History and Ourselves Publication. Retrieved from

https://www.facinghistory.org/for-educators/educator-resources/resources/i-learn-america-viewers-guide

84 Pavlik, J., & McIntosh, S. (2015). Converging media: An introduction to mass communication (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

85 Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

86 Dissard, J. M., & Peng, G. I learn America. Retrieved from http://ilearnamerica.com/the-film/

87 I learn America. Community conversations. Retrieved from http://ilearnamerica.com/community-conversations.

88 Shaker, I. (2016). Viral video touches on key immigration issues. (2015). RNW Media. Retrieved from https://www.rnw.org/articles/viral-video-touches-on-key-immigration-issues

89 Corcoran, L. (2015). How long are the most shared Facebook videos? Retrieved from https://www.newswhip.com/2015/10/length-most-shared-facebook-videos/#gH8EWH9crPLzBS5g.97

90 Brenner, J. (2013). Instagram, Vine, and the evolution of social media. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/20/instagram-vine-and-the-evolution-of-social-media/

91 Anderson, M. (2015). 5 facts about online video, for YouTube’s 10th birthday. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/5-facts-about-online-video-for-youtubes-10th-birthday/

92 Gandbheir, G, & Stephenson, M. (2016). A conversation with Asian-Americans on race. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004308529/a-conversation-with-asians-on-race.html?src=vidm

93 Brewster, J., Foster, B., & Stephenson, M. (2016). A conversation with Latinos on Race. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004237305/a-conversation-with-latinos-on-race.html?src=vidm

94 El-Fassi et al. (2015). Dutch children apologize for terrorism. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYyN1I5IF8E&feature=youtu.be

95 Lenette, C., & Boddy, J. (2013). Visual ethnography and refugee women: Nuanced understandings of lived experiences. Qualitative Research Journal, 13(1), 72-89.


29

96 Salgado, S. (2000). The Children: Refugees and Migrants. Aperture Foundation. For samples, see

http://www.unicef.org/salgado/

97 Europe’s Migration crisis in 25 photos. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/world/gallery/europes-refugee-crisis/

98 Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology: Overview 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/

99 Perrin. A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005-2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

100 Lenhart, A. (2015). A majority of American teens report access to a computer, game console, smartphone and a tablet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/a-majority-of-american-teens-report-access-to-a-computer-game-console-smartphone-and-a-tablet/

101 Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44, 1-35.

102 Smith, A. (2013). Civic engagement in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/part-1-online-and-offline-civic-engagement-in-america/

103 Define American: Transcending politics through a new conversation. Retrieved from http://www.defineamerican.com/

104 Vargas, J. A. #EmergingUS. Beacon. Retrieved from https://www.beaconreader.com/projects/emergingus

105 #EmergingUS. The Trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbJ-OtNEJDo

106 FWD.us. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.fwd.us/about_us

107 Immigrant Voter. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.immigrationvoter.com/values

108 Lella, A. (2015). Venmo, BuzzFeed, Tinder, and Snapchat among the top 20 apps with highest concentration of millennials. Retrieved from https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/Venmo-BuzzFeed-Tinder-and-Snapchat-Among-The-Top-20-Apps-with-Highest-Concentration-of-Millennials

109 Muther, C. (2013). Instant gratification is making us perceptually impatient. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2013/02/01/the-growing-culture-impatience-where-instant-gratification-makes-crave-more-instant-gratification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html

110 Immigrants. BuzzFeed. Retrived from https://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/immigrants

Cover designed by Janet Cerda

Institute for Immigration, Globalization, & Education

1041 Moore Hall, Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521(310) 206-9820 | [email protected]

University of California, Los Angeles

disrupting narratives of social exclusion for immigrant...

Documents