public discourse on immigration in 2010

8/6/2019 Public Discourse on Immigration in 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/public-discourse-on-immigration-in-2010 1/65

Public Discourse onImmigration in 2010:

An Analysis o Print and Broadcast MediaCoverage and Web 2.0 Discourse in 2010

A Meta-Analysis o Public OpinionResearch



The Opportunity Agenda

AcknowledgmentsThis report was authored by Loren Siegel (Part I) and Micky Hingorani (Part II) and edited by EleniDelimpaltadaki Janis, Public Opinion and Media Research Coordinator. Special thanks to those whocontributed to the analysis, editing, and design o the report, including Alan Jenkins, Janet Dewart Bell,Christopher Moore, Paulette J. Robinson, Lauren Rigney, and Max Nussenbaum.

The Immigrant Opportunity initiative is unded with project support rom Carnegie Corporation o New York, Four Freedoms Fund, U.S. Human Rights Fund, Oak Foundation, Unbound Philanthropy,and the Ford Foundation, with general operating support rom Starry Night Fund o Tides Foundationand Open Society Foundations. The statements made and views expressed are those o TheOpportunity Agenda.

About

The Opportunity AgendaThe Opportunity Agenda was ounded in 2004 with the mission o building the national willto expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, theorganization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions thatexpand opportunity or everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizesand translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions; uses communicationsand media to understand and inuence public opinion; and identifes and advocates or policies thatimprove people’s lives. To learn more about The Opportunity Agenda, go to our website atwww.opportunityagenda.org.

The Opportunity Agenda is a project o Tides Center.

March 2011




Table of ContentsPart I - Print and Broadcast Media Coverage and Public Opinion

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 7

Methodology 8

Media Content Analysis 10

Overview 10

Framing of Stories 11

Storylines 11

Spokespeople 24

Narratives 28

Penetration of the Core Narrative 29

Public Opinion on Immigration 32

Introduction 32

Immigrants and Immigration 32

The Immigration System and Reform 34

The Arizona SB 1070 Immigration Law, Due Process,

and Law Enforcement 37

Birthright Citizenship 38

Strategic Recommendations for Advocates 40

Appendix I: Organizations quoted or cited in print media coverage 43

Appendix II: Nationwide Public Opinion and Research Sources 44

Part II - Web 2.0 Discourse

Executive Summary 47

Facebook 50

Blogs 53

YouTube 56

Twitter 59

Conclusion 61




1

Part I:

Print and Broadcast

Media Coverage and

Public Opinion

Executive SummaryThis report analyzes mainstream media coverage and a body o public opinion research regardingimmigrants and immigration policy. Building on previous research by The Opportunity Agendacovering the period 2004–2009, Public Discourse on Immigration in 2010 identifes trends in newsreports and public opinion, contributing to a more robust, accurate, and sophisticated public discourseon this subject.

The report consists o two parts: an analysis o media content in mainstream print and broadcastmedia, and a meta-analysis o existing public opinion research on immigrants, immigration, and

immigration policy. The print media and public opinion analyses cover the period between January 1and November 2, 2010. The broadcast news analysis ocuses on the period o April 23–May 2, 2010,ollowing the enactment o Arizona’s Support Our Law Enorcement and Sae Neighborhoods Act (SB1070), which authorizes the police to detain anyone suspected o being in the United States illegally.

Media research

We analyzed the content o 20 mainstream newspapers and magazines, including both national andregional newspapers, and a limited number o transcripts o network and cable news programs.

The media content analysis explored key elements o immigration coverage:

1. Overall coverage o the issue

2. Framing o stories3. Most prevalent storylines

4. Individuals and types o people most requently quoted

5. Dominant narratives

6. Penetration o the core narrative developed by The Opportunity Agenda and other pro-immigrant advocates: workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and move us orward together.1

1 In 2008 The Opportunity Agenda collaborated with more than 150 immigrant rights leaders to map out a proactive and




Major fndings:

X The overall issue o immigration during 2010 was ramed thematically in mainstream media

coverage. The stories and opinion pieces repeatedly reported that the immigration system is“broken” and that the responsibility or fxing it rests with the ederal government.

X One story dominated print media coverage o immigration: Arizona’s Support Our LawEnorcement and Sae Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070—commonly reerred to as“SB 1070”), signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in April 2010. The next most-covered story, which oten overlapped with coverage o the Arizona law, was the push orcomprehensive immigration reorm (CIR). Storylines receiving less media attention included theObama administration’s enorcement strategy, the DREAM Act , the 2010 midterm elections,the economy, controversies surrounding Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheri Joe Arpaio, andbirthright citizenship.

X A key fnding rom our last media analysis—covering the period between November 2008 and July 2009—was that terms such as “overhaul” and “sweeping reorm” appeared regularly but

were poorly defned—i at all—in terms o what immigration reorm would look like. That haschanged. More recent media coverage presents an evolving consensus, the components o whichmost requently cited include border security, workplace enorcement, a realistic visa program,and a path to legalization or those already in the United States.

X Pro-immigrant voices outnumbered anti-immigrant voices—both o sources and o commentators—by 3 to 1 in our sample o articles.

X In broadcast coverage during the week ollowing the enactment o the Arizona law, opponentso the law—either as program guests or in interviews—outnumbered supporters by 18 percent.

X Three narratives dominated print media coverage:

1. The immigration system is broken and the ederal government is responsible or fxing it,

but the Obama administration and Congress are unwilling or unable to fnd a solution. Thepublic is rustrated and increasingly angry.

2. The Arizona law is misguided. Although Governor Brewer and other supporters o thelaw are quoted, the majority o the coverage is negative. Concerns about racial and ethnicprofling dominate this narrative, which is reinorced by strongly worded editorials andprominent coverage o mass protests.

3. Comprehensive immigration reorm is the solution. In both opinion pieces and news articles,CIR—once largely undefned—has begun to take concrete orm. It is usually described assome combination o border saety and control, a path to citizenship or the undocumented,a exible visa program to match the country’s ecnomic needs, air hiring practices, employersanctions, and a system o worker eligibility verifcation. Solution-oriented rhetoric gives CIR

an aura o possibility.

X The dominant narrative carried in mainstream broadcast news coverage during the weekollowing the enactment o the Arizona law was double-edged: that the state’s action hadbrought the issue o immigration issue to a head even as the nation was locked in a fercedispute over what to do about illegal immigration.

X The opposition narrative, advocated by Republican elected ofcials in Congress as well as in

unifed “core narrative” that advocates could use to guide their public statements about the need or comprehensive reorm. (A corenarrative is not a message or slogan but, rather, an overarching “big story” rooted in shared values and priorities.) Each o the corenarrative’s elements—(1) workable solutions that (2) uphold our nation’s values and (3) move us orward together—represents,respectively, a set o ideas about pragmatism, national principles, and progress through cooperation.




3

Arizona and by conservative talk-show fgures, is based on the alleged overwhelmingly scarceresources at both the state and ederal levels to solve the problem and the threat to nationalsecurity posed by illegal immigration.

X Elements o the pro-immigrant core narrative—we need workable solutions that uphold ournation’s values and move us orward together—were reected in the mainstream media’scoverage o immigration. As previously noted, one element o the print media’s dominantnarrative was that a solution is possible—comprehensive immigration reorm—comprised o dierent parts, among them a path to legalization. The passage o SB 1070 generated a robustnational discussion in numerous articles and commentaries about American values, some o which eatured the positive contributions o immigrants.

Public opinion research

The public opinion review is based on a synthesis and meta-analysis o existing attitudinal trackingsurveys and recent public opinion studies by nationally known and respected research organizations,

media outlets, and advocacy groups. We explored public opinion fndings on the ollowing topics:

X Immigrants and immigration

X The immigration system and reorm

X The Arizona SB 1070 immigration law, due process, and law enorcement

X Birthright citizenship

Major fndings:

X A majority o Americans (57 percent) continues to believe that immigration, on the whole, isa good thing—though the public is less positive about it now than in the past decade (“GallupDaily tracking survey”).

X Views about undocumented immigrants are more negative, although research also indicatesa degree o ambivalence. On the one hand, a majority (55 percent) says it has an unavorableview o “illegal” immigrants. On the other hand, when asked whether or not it is “sympathetic”towards “illegal” immigrants, a larger majority (64 percent) answers in the afrmative(“Americans Closely Divided Over Immigration Reorm Priority,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, June2010).

X The idea that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our economy and on public servicescontinues to have traction: 62 percent believe “illegal immigrants cost taxpayers too muchby using government services” (“Americans Closely Divided Over Immigration Policy”). Atthe same time, 84 percent o Americans agree that the economy would beneft i currentlyundocumented immigrants became tax-paying citizens (“Religion, Values, and Immigration

Reorm”/Public Religion Research Institute, March 2010). X There is widespread agreement about the overall state o the country’s immigration systemand the general contours o preerred policy reorms. The belie that the immigration system isbroken and must be reormed is nearly universal.

X Although immigration is a mid-ranking concern, voters eel a sense o urgency about the needor comprehensive immigration reorm. There is strong support or reorm that encompassesstrengthened border security, employer sanctions, and a path to legalization or citizenship. Evenwhen decoupled rom strengthened border security—an element o reorm that persistentlygarners great support—the concept o earned legalization or citizenship or undocumentedimmigrants already living in the this country fnds wide support today (Pew Research Center or




the People & the Press).

X The values underlying the public’s range o opinions about immigration include law and order,respect or American culture, and integrating immigrants into the social abric o the country.

X The Arizona law enjoys broad public support nationwide (60 percent), but at the same timemost Americans also back a path to citizenship or undocumented immigrants now in theU.S. (78 percent). O those who support the Arizona law, a majority (52 percent) say they doso because o the ederal government’s ailure “to solve the problem,” while only 28 percentthink “it will reduce illegal immigration” (“Findings rom a Survey o 800 Registered VotersNationwide,” America’s Voice/Lake Research Partners/Public Opinion Strategies). It seems thatsupport or Arizona’s law comes out o a desire or action and rustration with inaction ratherthan out o anti-immigrant eelings.

X The public is concerned about due process and the enorcement o immigration laws. Despitetheir support or Arizona’s actions, Americans express disquiet about the passage o “stricternew immigration laws” in general. Racial profling and orced deportation o long-time

residents rank high as concerns or such laws (“Broad Approval or New Arizona ImmigrationLaw,” Pew Research Center or the People & the Press, May 6–9, 2010).

Strategic recommendations for advocates

In 2010 the immigrant rights movement and its allies seized the opportunity and dominated themainstream media’s coverage o the immigration policy debate. The demand or comprehensiveimmigration reorm, in which a path to legalization is frmly embedded, is now being carried orthby the mainstream media with the result that public opinion is shiting in the movement’s direction.Nevertheless, there are a series o disconnects that emerge rom the media and opinion analyses:

X Media raming and commentary was overwhelmingly against the Arizona law, yet a majority o Americans support it.

X A majority o Americans support the Arizona law while also supporting comprehensiveimmigration reorm.

X Both public opinion and media coverage strongly avor comprehensive reorm, yet a bipartisanreorm bill ailed to even come up or a vote, and anti-reorm calls and letters to Congressdwared pro-reorm calls and letters. The same was true or the DREAM Act .

X Overall, pro-immigrant advocates have been winning the battle or the support o the Americanpeople overall, even as they have lost most ederal legislative battles.

Addressing these disconnects will be one o the challenges going orward; with this dynamic in mind,we make the ollowing recommendations:

1. Maintain and build on past gains. Over the past fve years, the pro-immigrant movement and

its allies have crated an eective core narrative, attained signifcant message discipline anddelivery, garnered a majority o mainstream media quotes, and edged out anti-immigrantvoices in the political blogosphere and online social networks. With considerable organizingand advocacy eorts, this has enabled them to gain and maintain majority support or mostpro-immigrant policies within the American electorate—across partisan, ideological, anddemographic groups—and to move mainstream media news coverage and commentaryoverwhelmingly in support o their major goals and principles. This is a signifcant achievement,especially in the context o an historic economic recession, and eort must be exerted tomaintain and build on those gains. In other words, the tactics and inrastructure developed todate remain necessary, though not sufcient, to achieve national-level legislative victories. Andthey will be crucial to the continuing state and local debates on immigrant issues around the




5

country.

2. Mobilize the base or rapid response. While the pro-immigrant side has succeeded in persuadinga great majority o the electorate to its cause, opponents o reorm are signifcantly more

successul in mobilizing their members to contact lawmakers and to post caustic commentsonline in response to pro-immigrant news articles and blog posts. This rapid-response strategyskews lawmakers’ perceptions o their constituents’ views and creates the perception thatvoting or positive reorms is more costly than doing nothing or supporting negative policies.Communications strategies can help close urgency and activism gaps that currently exist. Justas anti-immigrant groups do, pro-immigrant organizations should direct additional resourcestoward responding immediately online when issues arise, and when stories or commentary ontheir topics appear. Coalitions like Reorm Immigration or America have already made someheadway in this eort, innovatively using text messaging technologies.

3. Engage progressive activists. The research shows that progressive whites and Arican Americansare persuadable on immigration, yet they are not part o a reliable base. That said, Arizona’s SB1070 did draw positive media attention to immigration issues and attracted progressive mediavoices such as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, joining those who support due processand opportunity or immigrants. This opening should be built upon, developing a groundswellby pitching stories and positions in progressive media vehicles and to progressive opinionleaders.

4. Expand the core narrative and messaging discipline into state and local debates. Advocates havesignifcantly progressed in articulating a shared narrative in avor o immigrant integration andhuman rights where none had existed. The narrative should be customized, vetted, and appliedto state and local debates around enorcement, due process, and integration policies. Theseevents should be seen as opportunities to deliver messages using the ramework o the corenarrative. Advocates should avoid the temptation to be purely reactive; instead, they should beproactive, using their media access to insist on “workable solutions that uphold our nation’s

values and move us orward together.”5. Underscore core values, and redefne when necessary. The public’s reliance on the value o law

and order makes it difcult to shape opinion in opposition to harsh enorcement laws. Messagesneed to invoke values that protect due process, remind people about the positive contributionso immigrants, and work to allay or mitigate eelings o unease about shiting cultural andethnic demographics.

6. Rigorously ocus on solutions and position the government as capable o achieving thesesolutions. The American public remains hungry or eective solutions, and the pro-immigrant movement has built a reputation or such solutions in the mainstream media.As the comprehensive immigration reorm debate wanes at the ederal level, advocates andspokespeople should articulate pragmatic solutions to state and local problems. At the sametime, it is important to position the government as capable o achieving these solutions.

Research by the FrameWorks Institute and others suggests that the act that Americans believethe system is in a crisis does not necessarily drive them to solutions (“Framing ImmigrationReorm: A FrameWorks Message Memo,” FrameWorks Institute, June 2010). The emphasis onthe “broken system” can lead people to thinking that the problem just cannot be fxed, and canmake them hopeless and possibly push them toward harsh measures. Positive stories are the bestantidote to the scare tactics o the anti-immigrant movement. For example:

X Stories about immigrants lining up to take English classes ramed thematically.

X Stories about how immigrants have saved dying industrial cities and rural communities romeconomic ruin.




X Stories about the participation o non-citizen immigrants serving in the U.S. armed orces.

X Stories about civic organizations reaching out to immigrants in their communities to buildties, learn rom each other, and address mutual needs and interests.

When pitching stories o individual immigrants, advocates need to make sure that these storiesare ramed to ocus on the system and its ailures, as opposed to the individual. The systemicrame can motivate target audiences to see policy changes, rather than individual behavior, asthe solution to the immigration problem.

7. Expand the roster o pro-reorm messengers. Our scan shows that immigrant voices now occupysignifcant space in coverage o the immigration policy debate. Pro-immigrant religious andbusiness leaders are also garnering media attention, along with law enorcement spokespeoplewho object to enorcing ederal immigration laws on public saety grounds. All these voicesshould continue to be aggressively pitched to the media. Other voices need to be amplifed,especially local civic leaders who have spearheaded integration programs or who have hadpositive experiences with immigrants. Their experiences underscore the idea that when the

government meets its obligations by taking positive action, everyone benefts. These integrationmessengers should be identifed and reporters should be steered in their direction. A proactivetactic such as the public release o a joint statement to Congress signed by a critical mass o

local leaders should be considered.




7

IntroductionPublic Discourse on Immigration in 2010 is the ourth public discourse analysis we have completedon the subject o immigrants and immigration reorm. In our frst media analysis, Framing Immigrant Integration, which covered 2004–2006, we concluded that there were two dominant media narratives:(1) immigrants are strivers who by dint o hard work overcome the odds to achieve the AmericanDream; and (2) the “tidal wave o illegals pouring over the border” poses a threat to the nation’ssecurity and economic well-being. While the striver narrative was positive, it was presented through anepisodic rame and ailed to highlight the integration policies that help make immigrant success storiespossible. On the other hand, the very negative tidal wave metaphor undermined support or positiveimmigration reorm as well as immigrant integration policies.

In our second media analysis, The Evolution o Public Discourse on Immigration: 2006–2007 , which

was completed shortly ater the acrimonious and unruitul congressional debate over comprehensiveimmigration reorm, we observed that the media’s coverage reected the nation’s ambivalent responseto immigrants and immigration policy. The dominant media narrative underscored the chasm betweenreal lie in 21st century America and the divisive policy debate “on the hill.” According to thisnarrative, evident in editorial and news coverage, immigrants were an integral part o the 21st centuryAmerican reality—they are here, they’re part o us, our economy would suer without them—andfxing our broken immigration policy was a national priority. But, shrill partisanship prevented ourelected leaders rom solving this problem.

Close to hal o the articles in our third media analysis, Public Discourse on Immigration—A Scano Print and Broadcast Media Coverage in 2008–2009, were about ederal immigration enorcementin the waning months o the Bush presidency—workplace raids, detentions, and deportations—thatunderscored the act that the system was still broken and that ederal enorcement was producingconsequences inimical to American values o airness, amily, and community. At the same time,solutions remained elusive. Pro-immigrant voices were not yet communicating a values-based,solution-oriented narrative to compete with the anti-immigrant “law and order” narrative. The terms“overhaul” and “sweeping reorm” appeared regularly, but without any defnitions or details.

In this, our ourth periodic review, we can see how the discourse has continued to evolve. The passageo Arizona’s harsh, anti-immigrant law (SB 1070) brought the policy debate to a head and underscoredthe ailure o both Congress and the Obama administration to break partisan gridlock and fnd anational solution. Headlines about mass demonstrations or reorm—combined with the act thatquotes rom pro-immigrant spokespeople outnumbered quotes rom anti-immigrant spokespeopleby almost 3 to 1—showed that the immigrant rights movement had the initiative. Media coveragereected an emerging national consensus about the elements o comprehensive immigration reorm;

solution-oriented language gave it an aura o inevitability.




MethodologyMedia content analysis

The media analysis in this report is based on content rom 20 mainstream newspapers and magazines,including the largest national newspapers in the country, and a limited number o transcripts o newsprograms on the ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS television networks. The time rameo the print coverage was rom January 1 through November 2, 2010. Given the tools available, thescan o broadcast and cable media was limited to the analysis o one topic within immigration; wechose to analyze television coverage between April 22 and May 2, 2010, to capture a snapshot o hownews programs covered the passage o the Arizona law, SB 1070.2 Coverage o that singular eventprovides a window into more general television coverage o immigration issues.

The fnal sample o 75 articles was drawn rom an overall pool o 681 articles that were identifed by

searching on the Nexis database using the ollowing terms: (hlead(immigra! w/s policy or reorm orlegislation or rights or economy!)). The sample o 25 network television transcripts was drawn rom anoverall pool o 321 transcripts that were identifed by searching on the Nexis database using the terms“Arizona” AND “immigration.” Samples were selected by applying a random sequence generator toensure they were representative. A list o the print and network TV outlets included in the analysis ison page 9.

Public opinion research

This section is based on a synthesis and meta-analysis o attitudinal tracking surveys and recentpublic opinion studies by nationally known and reputable research organizations, media outlets, andadvocacy groups. All o the data examined are publicly available.

We reviewed original data rom 22 public opinion studies, the majority o which were surveys. All wereconducted during 2010. We also looked at attitudinal surveys that tracked opinion changes and trendsin the United States with respect to immigrants and immigration.

The studies reerenced in this report meet The Opportunity Agenda’s standards and best practices orquality and objective public opinion research, including appropriate sample size, a methodologicallysound design and research instrument, and inclusion o a balanced questionnaire or surveys anddiscussion guides or ocus groups. The studies are listed in Appendix II, “Public Opinion and MediaResearch Sources.”

Finally, because opinion research has largely adopted racial categories utilized by the ederalgovernment, this section uses these categories where appropriate. The categories are defned as ollows:

X American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN): any person who sel-identifes as AIAN only

X Asian: any person who sel-identifes as Asian only

X Black: any person who sel-identifes as black only

X Hispanic: any person o any race who sel-identifes as Hispanic

X White: any person who sel-identifes as white only and non-Hispanic

2 On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the Support Our Law Enorcement and SaeNeighborhoods Act , known simply as SB 1070. Dubbed “the nation’s toughest immigration law,” it makes the ailure to carryimmigration documents a crime and gives the local police broad powers to detain anyone suspected o being in the country illegally.




9

*Associated Press is an international news organization

oering news, photos, graphics, audio and video or 1,700newspapers and 5,000 radio and television outlets in theUnited States as well as newspaper, radio and televisionsubscribers internationally. There are bureaus worldwiderepresenting over one hundred countries.

Broadcast media

ABC News World News with Diane Sawyer,Good Morning America, This

Week

CBS News CBS Evening News, The EarlyShow, Face the Nation, 60Minutes

CNN Anderson Cooper 360, JohnKing USA, CNN Newsroom, JoyBehar Show, Campbell Brown,The Situation Room

NBC News Today Show, Meet the Press,NBC Nightly News

PBS PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show, TheEd Show, Countdown, Hardball

Fox News Network Hannity, The O’Reilly Factor,Fox on the Record with GretaVan Susteren

Newspapers and Magazines

The Arizona Republic 308,973

The Associated Press N/A*

The Atlanta Journal & Constitution 181,504

The Baltimore Sun 178,455

The Boston Globe 222,683

Chicago Tribune 441,508

The Denver Post 309,863

Detroit Free Press 245,326

The Houston Chronicle 343,952

Los Angeles Times 600,449

Miami Herald 151,612

The New York Times 876,638

Newsweek 1,972,219

The Philadelphia Inquirer 342,361

The Plain Dealer 252,608

The San Francisco Chronicle 223,549

US News & World Report 2,519,310

USA Today 1,830,594

Wall Street Journal 2,061,142

The Washington Post 545,345




Media Content

AnalysisOverview

Public Discourse on Immigration in 2010 reveals insights regarding the public discourse aboutimmigrants, immigration, and immigration policy. Our fndings are grouped into the ollowingcategories:

1. Overall coverage o immigration

2. Framing o stories3. Most prevalent storylines

4. Individuals and types o people most requently quoted

5. Dominant narratives

6. Penetration o the core narrative: workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and moveus orward together.

Overall coverage of the immigration debate across all types of media

Looking beyond the scope o our scan, immigration was not a dominant topic o media coverageor most o 2010. A review o the weekly News Coverage Index provided by the Pew Research

Center’s Project or Excellence in Journalism3

shows two spikes in coverage—one in April, the otherin July—both related to the Arizona law authorizing the police to demand proo o legal status when“reasonable suspicion” exists that a person is in the United States illegally. Until April, immigrationwas not among the top fve stories or any week. But Governor Brewer’s signing o SB 1070 into lawand the controversy it engendered pushed the “immigration debate” into a tie or second place withthe oil rig explosion during the week o April 26–May 2; it was the top story on radio and cable TVtalk shows, consuming more than hal o the airtime (54 percent). The next spike happened during theweek ollowing U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling blocking key portions o the Arizonalaw rom going into eect. During the week o July 26–August 1, the immigration debate accountedor 13 percent o all news coverage and nearly 30 percent o cable TV coverage.

The only other week when immigration was one o the top fve stories was the week o August 9th,when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham o South Carolina oated his proposal that the FourteenthAmendment’s guarantee o “birthright citizenship” be repealed. This captured 4 percent o the newscoverage, making it the ourth-biggest story that week (behind the 2010 midterm elections at 15percent, the economic crisis at 12 percent, and the plane crash death o ormer GOP Alaska SenatorTed Stevens at 5 percent).

3 http://www.journalism.org/




11

Framing of stories

Framing news stories is important because dierent rames have dierent eects on how people

attribute responsibility or the cause o and the solutions to social problems. Episodic rames highlightthe experiences o individuals and implicitly promote the idea that individuals are solely responsibleor what happens to them. Alternatively, thematic rames contextualize the plights o individuals byilluminating the conditions that give rise to societal problems. This helps readers understand thatproblems and their solutions are systemic in nature, and this understanding builds public support orcomprehensive policy solutions.

Immigration was ramed thematically in media coverage during 2010. The stories and opinionpieces repeatedly reported that the immigration system was “broken” and that the responsibility orfxing it rested with the ederal government. Even the stories in which the plights o individuals werehighlighted used those “episodes” as vehicles or introducing and illustrating the negative impacts o the broken system. Competing partisan policy claims, the conict between state and ederal lawmakers,and the active engagement o a large and broad immigrant rights movement are recurring themes.

Thematic raming has characterized immigration coverage since 2007. Prior to that, stories requentlyappeared as eatures about striving and successul individual immigrants and about the cultural andbusiness activities o immigrant communities in the United States. But in 2007, the bitter debate inCongress brought about a shit, and it is likely that the story o the broken system and the need to fx itwill predominate until reorm is enacted.

Storylines

One story dominated print media coverage o the immigration issue: Arizona’s Support Our LawEnorcement and Sae Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070—commonly reerred to as “SB 1070”),signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in April 2010. Were it not or Arizona, the immigration issue

would likely have received ar less attention rom the mainstream media. The next most-covered story,which oten overlapped with coverage o the Arizona law, was the push or comprehensive immigrationreorm (CIR). Many o those stories were triggered by grass-roots protests and other activities by theimmigrant rights movement. Ten percent o the articles ocused on ederal enorcement issues under theObama administration. As we ound in our previous study, Media Content Analysis: Public Discourseon Immigration 2008–2009, the link between immigration and the economic crisis received relativelylittle coverage, according to our scan (see table 1).

Table 1. ImmIgraTIon coverage In prInT medIa, January-november 2010

Arizona 42%

Push for comprehensive reform 25%

Obama Administration’s enforcement strategy 10%

The DREAM Act 6%

Mid-term elections 5%

Maricopa, Arizona Sheriff Arpaio 5%

Immigration and the economic crisis 4%

Birthright citizenship 3%

Source: Public Discourse on Immigration in 2010, The Opportunity Agenda, March 2011.




Arizona

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the Support Our Law Enorcement

and Sae Neighborhoods Act , known simply as SB 1070. Dubbed “the nation’s toughest immigrationlaw,” it makes the ailure to carry immigration documents a crime and gives the local police broadpowers to detain anyone suspected o being in the country illegally. The enactment o SB 1070,the protests it engendered, and the legal challenges fled—especially the lawsuit fled by the U.S.Department o Justice—were major news stories throughout the spring and summer. Forty-two percento the articles generated by our scan covered SB 1070. We also scanned television news coverage in theweek ollowing the passage o the law.

Print Media

About one-third o the articles in our random sample were opinion pieces, all o them critical o the new law. The Arizona Republic published two editorials in the immediate atermath o the bill’spassage; “Stop Failing Arizona” accused state politicians o “pandering to public ear” and serving

“political expediency” rather than providing leadership. It called on voters to “get wise and demandleadership and solutions” (The Arizona Republic, May 2, 2010). “Seek consensus, rehabilitation o state’s image” responded to calls or a boycott o the state by challenging Arizona to “rehabilitate itsimage . . . by becoming the leader in demanding ederal solutions on immigrants.” The editorial calledArizona’s multicultural heritage “a treasure” and argued that “neither the problems created by illegalimmigration nor the ethnicity o many o the illegal immigrants should become an excuse to tread onthe rights o Latino Arizonans” (The Arizona Republic, May 7, 2010).

The Chicago Tribune challenged the practicality o “Arizona’s approach—called ‘attrition through

enorcement’”:

That’s a losing battle as long as there are incentives on this side—incentives that beneft bothimmigrants and the American businesses that employ them. For decades, an apt image o

our southern border was a big “help wanted” sign astened to a razor wire ence. The mixedmessage: You’re not supposed to be here—but come i you can (“Obama vs. Arizona,”ChicagoTribune, July 7, 2010).

Op-eds and columns were equally critical o the Arizona law. An illustrative op-ed by Ana E.Hernandez, a Texas state representative, was published in The Houston Chronicle. In it she describedthe “constant state o ear” her amily experienced while living undocumented until the 1986 reormswere passed. She called the Arizona law “hateul and racially driven” and urged Texans to supportcomprehensive immigration reorm (“Arizona law is dangerous approach to border issues; Immigrantscontribute billions to state economy,” The Houston Chronicle, May 1, 2010). Other opinion piecesincluded:

A column in Newsweek applauding the U.S. Conerence o Catholic Bishops or condemning

the Arizona law (Lisa Miller “Three Cheers or the Bishops; They’re righteous onimmigration,” Newsweek, May 10, 2010).

A column by Tim Rutten condemning “Arizona’s legislative war on immigrants” (“Obamaneeds to step up,” Los Angeles Times, May 26, 2010).

An op-ed by Doris Meissner and James Ziglar o the Migration Policy Institute supportingthe Obama administration’s legal challenge to SB1070, noting that “Allowing states to settheir own immigration policies ails to solve the overall problem o illegal immigration andviolates the supremacy clause o the Constitution” (“Why Arizona had to be challenged,” TheWashington Post, July 22, 2010).




part o the protestors:

“Chanting or change thousands march against Ariz. law” (Annette Espinoza and HeatherMcWilliams, The Denver Post, May 2, 2010).

“Rallies against Arizona law draw droves; In L.A. alone, 50,000 gather to protest measuresome say pushes racial profling” (Sophia Tareen, The Houston Chronicle, May 2, 2010).

“Phila. rally decries Ariz. immigrant crackdown” (Michael Matza, The Philadelphia Inquirer,May 27, 2010).

The articles were sprinkled with quotes rom demonstrators and onlookers:

“I believe in universal human dignity,” said Scott Sloan, an active Democrat.

“These are people who believe in the American dream and are trying to live it,” said Jason Kingo Denver (The Denver Post ).

“We’re good people,” singer Gloria Estean said atop a atbed truck. “We’ve given a lot to thiscountry. This country has given a lot to us” (The Houston Chronicle).

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parentsillegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t” (TheHouston Chronicle).

Police spokespeople expressed their reservations about the law and its impact on police-communityrelations:

San Jose Police Chie Robert Davis, president o the Major Cities Chies Association, said thegroup stands by its 2006 policy that, “immigration enorcement by local police would likely

negatively eect and undermine the level o trust and cooperation between local police andimmigrant communities” (Kevin Johnson, “Ariz. immigration law creates rit; Measure couldhave national implications,” USA Today, April 26, 2010).

“Over the last 25 years we’ve worked hard to build relationships with minority communitiesthat are immigrant communities,” said Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.“Enorcing immigration laws will cause us many problems in terms o those people eeling theycan talk to us about crime issues and report crimes” (Michael Matza, “Phila. rally decries Ariz.immigrant crackdown,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 27, 2010).

July-August

News coverage during the summer covered the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to block the

Arizona law rom taking eect. The lawsuit and Judge Bolton’s preliminary injunction were sometimesdiscussed in the context o the approaching midterm elections and gave Republican leaders an openingto attack the Obama administration:

Republican leaders, reacting quickly, said Washington and the administration were to blameor ailing to enorce immigration laws over many years. “Suing the people o Arizona orattempting to do a job the ederal government has utterly ailed to execute will not help secureour borders,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (David G. Savage, “U.S.fles suit to block Arizona law,” Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2010).

“Instead o wasting taxpayer resources fling a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that




15

the law would be burdensome,” Mr. McCain said in a joint statement with Senator Jon Kyl,Republican o Arizona, “the Obama administration should have ocused its eorts on workingwith Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its eorts to act where

the ederal government has ailed to take responsibility” (Randal C. Archibold, “Judge BlocksArizona’s Law on Immigrants,” The New York Times, July 29, 2010).

A fnal point about this storyline is the requency with which comprehensive immigration reormappears as the antidote to Arizona’s “crackdown on illegal immigrants” and the number o timesPresident Obama was criticized by protesters, columnists, and editorial boards or not keeping hiscampaign promise to push or reorm in his frst year in ofce. A ew examples ollow [the boldaceemphasis is ours]:

Angered by a controversial Arizona immigration law, tens o thousands o protesters—including 50,000 alone in Los Angeles—rallied in cities nationwide demanding PresidentBarack Obama tackle immigration reorm immediately (Sophia Tareen, “Rallies againstArizona law draw droves; In L.A. alone, 50,000 gather to protest measure some say pushes

racial profling,” The Houston Chronicle, May 2, 2010).

In Arizona, meanwhile, the consequences o the president’s ailure to push or comprehensiveimmigration reorm, as he promised in his campaign, have been compounded by the JusticeDepartment’s sloth in challenging that state’s recently enacted anti-immigrant legislation (TimRutten, “Obama needs to step up,” Los Angeles Times, May 26, 2010).

Marching or immigrant rights outside Independence Hall on Wednesday, about 100 placard-carrying demonstrators denounced Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration and calledon President Obama to honor his campaign pledge to bring about comprehensive reorm” (Michael Matza, “Phila. rally decries Ariz. immigrant crackdown,” The Philadelphia Inquirer,May 27, 2010).

Television Coverage

For the network media scan, we zeroed in on coverage o the adoption o SB 1070 during the week o April 23–30 on the ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS networks. In order to get a clearerpicture o how the more mainstream stations covered the story, we analyzed separately the two morepartisan stations, MSNBC and Fox News Network.

In mainstream coverage, studio appearances took place in either a debate or a roundtable discussion.The debaters were generally elected ofcials or representatives o advocacy organizations romeither side. The roundtable discussions were populated by pundits rom the let, right, and centerand the majority o them expressed either strong opposition to the law or signifcant concern aboutits implementation. Both the debates and the roundtable discussions tended to ocus on three issues:(1) racial profling, (2) immigration as a ederal versus a state responsibility, and (3) the politicalramifcations o partisanship on the immigration issue.

Examples: racial profling

Rep. Raul Grijalva: And when you talk about profling, I thought the governor’s eort andexecutive order was kind o interesting. Russell Pearce [a white Arizona senator who was oneo the bill’s main backers] will be driving down the street without his wallet. A policeman willstop him, pat him on the hand and send him home. I will be driving down the street withouta wallet, and I stand the chance o getting arrested, put in jail and fned $500. That is wherethe profling will happen. And that’s the discriminatory aspect that has got so many o us in




Arizona completely opposed to this bill…

Michael Hethman: Well, actually, the standard in the Arizona bill, reasonable suspicionthat a person is unlawully in the country, is much more modest than the ederal standardsestablished by the Supreme Court, which says that an ofcer, in a lawul stop, doesn’t need anyreasonable suspicion at all to query the person about their immigration status. So, what we areseeing in Arizona is a much more modest measure, which is designed to be practical and to dealwith these wild kind o claims that Mr. Grijalva is making (NewsHour, PBS, April 23, 2010).

David Brooks: First o all, I think this bill in Arizona is an invitation to abuse. You’re going tohave the government making decisions on the basis o race. And at what level are they makingthese decisions? At the cop level, in the worst possible circumstances, when people are angry?It’s an invitation to sort o racial profling and abuse. So I think it’s terrible (Meet the Press,NBC, April 25, 2010).

Cynthia Tucker: A Caliornia Republican has said you can tell an illegal immigrant by the

shoes they wear. O course this is an invitation to racial profling. Everyone with a Spanishsurname, everyone with a certain look, you may or may not be Latino. There are people in myamily who look as i they could be Latino. It harkens back to apartheid when all black peoplein South Arica were required to carry documents in order to move rom one part o town toanother (The Roundtable; This Week’s “Politics,” ABC, April 25, 2010).

Lou Dobbs: The biggest misconception is that it requires racial profling, that it prescribesracial profling. And importantly, the legislators and the Governor in Arizona, are makingabsolutely certain that there will not be racial profling (Good Morning America, ABC, April30, 2010).

Examples: ederal versus state responsibility

Bay Buchanan: You know what they’re giving is the tools to the law enorcement ofcers o Arizona. The same tools that we now have given to border agents. The [ederal] law has notdone the job. Arizona is a target or human and drug smuggling. … People are being murdered,the schools are overloaded. These laws have not worked and so now they’re given the tools.They’re taking the handcus o the police ofcers and they’re going to be putting them onthose who are violating the laws o this country.

Maria Cordona: Look, what we need clearly is comprehensive immigration reorm. I absolutelyunderstand the rustration o olks in Arizona and o all o our leaders in the border stateswho are looking at this problem and have had this problem or many, many, many years. It isan issue that we need to deal with at a ederal level, which is why the President said yesterdaythat we need to deal with this by passing comprehensive immigration reorm (The Early Show,CBS, April 24, 2010).

Matt Dowd: To me, Arizona is a sideshow. … This is about people in a state—and it’s goingon all over the country—that they see a ederal government that’s unwilling to enorce a lawthat’s already on the books. There is an immigration law on the books… so it’s not about anew law passed. It’s about a state saying that we think the ederal government should enorcethe law. They’re not enorcing the law, so we’re going to enorce the law. I don’t think it’s theright response. I think we need the ederal government to step up and actually perorm animmigration policy. But it’s not about Arizona (The Roundtable; This Week’s “Politics,” ABC,May 2, 2010).




17

Examples: political ramifcations

Alexis Glick (ormer Fox VP o Business News): I thought one o the most interesting thingsis Senator McCain’s stance on this, someone who talked a lot on the campaign trail and hasbeen very vocal about needing comprehensive immigration reorm. I understand he’s fghtinga tight race and a tight battle there, but I thought that was very telling, when you look to howthis will impact the mid-term elections. Is this about what will happen to the Hispanic vote? Isthis about what you need to do in these short-term elections to get the necessary votes? (TheRoundtable; This Week’s “Politics,” ABC, April 25, 2010).

Paul Steinhauser (CNN Deputy Political Director): You can say that what’s happening inArizona will have an impact right back here at the nation’s capitol. It could be a kick in thepants to the White House and Democrats trying to push orward on immigration reorm. …It looks like immigration reorm may be ast-tracked now by the White House and Democratsin Congress. They may try to push immigration reorm, some kind o pathway to citizenship.They’re going to try to push that through this summer or sometime beore the elections this

November. … The Latino community is growing every year, it seems, when it comes to theelectorate (CNN Newsroom, April 24, 2010).

Wol Blitzer: More now on Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants. The state’scontroversial new law is dividing Republicans. I talked about that and more with the partychairman, Michael Steele. … Some Republican strategists, Karl Rove among others, areworried this is going to alienate Hispanic voters. The Republican Party needs these people.

Michael Steele: I think Karl Rove is exactly right about that. And we need, as a party, to bemindul that our prior actions in this area and certainly our rhetoric in this area has not beenthe most welcoming and the most supportive o helping those who want to assimilate into theway o lie o America… (The Situation Room, CNN, May 1, 2010).

Katrina Vanden Heuvel (The Nation): This issue is going to sort Republicans and conservativespolitically, morally. I think Latino-bashing, which is what this is, is ultimately political suicideor the Republican Party (The Roundtable; This Week’s “Politics,” ABC, May 2, 2010).

Our sample included fve programs rom Fox News. The hosts played the role o opinion-makerrather than unbiased moderator, and they had guests who agreed with their point o view. Both hostsand guests on Fox were strong supporters o the Arizona law and used the media to deny that racialprofling was an issue and to tell their immigration story o an out-o-control border, the threat o terrorism and rising crime, and overburdened social services.

Sean Hannity: Well, the most controversial side o this is that, i they think people are in thecountry illegally, they’re going to stop them. And people say, “Well, wait a minute. That’s racialprofling.” Reaction?

Steven Crowder, Fox News contributor: I think it is racial profling. I don’t think there’s reallyanything wrong as ar as racial profling, stopping people who are coming in illegally. I mean,you’re not looking or a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede most o the time.

Hannity: Let me broaden the discussion. Because we know the impact o illegal immigration.America can no longer aord it. It’s impacting our criminal justice system, our health caresystem, our educational system. We have people… i somebody can just walk across theborder because they want to get a job and they want more opportunity, so, too, can a terrorist,somebody who wants to destroy an American city (Hannity, April 23, 2010).




Laura Ingraham: The proposed boycott o Arizona is a cheap publicity stunt, not to mentionillogical and counterproductive. And those o us who support Arizona’s crackdown on illegalimmigration should encourage our own states to adopt similar measures. Ater all, i states

can’t help enorce the very immigration laws that Congress has passed, then the concept o national sovereignty and the rule o law are totally meaningless.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): Ninety percent o the illegal drugs in America come through orrom Mexico. There’s a lot o crime that’s associated with that. I you look at Giuliani’s brokenwindows eect, you fx the window and you break up the mobs on the street and you actuallyend murder. We have to do it with all immigration law and are doing it in Arizona. I we do iteverywhere, we won’t need ICE at all (The O’Reilly Factor, April 27, 2010).

Ann Coulter: Everyone is blatantly lying about what this law does. Specifcally racial proflingis prohibited by the law. Cops, by the way, cannot initiate contact with anyone under the lawwhom they could not initiate contact with beore. It’s when they’re in the process o stoppingsomeone or arresting someone i there’s a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally,

not based on race, not based on a suspicion o the person’s national origin. … I’ve never seen alaw lied about, any public issue lied about so much (The O’Reilly Factor, April 30, 2010).

We also analyzed coverage rom MSNBC. Hosts and guests o the cable channel expressed theirdisapproval o the Arizona law by underscoring its sanctioning o racial profling. They used theirmedia access as a bully pulpit to push or comprehensive immigration reorm.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson: I’m extremely disappointed. I think it hurts thedemocratic values o this country and it’s impractical. It’s not a reorm. It’s unenorceable.It’s going to spur racial profling. … Hopeully, what this will spur is what the Congress hasailed to do. And that is comprehensive immigration reorm, an earned legalization program,accountability, where the 11 million that are here, speak English, prove that they have a viablebackground check, get in back o the line. We do need more border enorcement, an employerverifcation system (The Rachel Maddow Show, April 23, 2010).

Keith Olbermann: Protests continuing at this hour at the state capitol o Phoenix, Arizona,while calls or and outlines o boycotts o the various and extremely vulnerable aspects o one o that state’s primary exports, tourism, takes shape. … Sunday, thousands turned out toprotest the law that makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant, a law that will allowpolice to stop and question anyone they wish, merely on the suspicion that they might be in thestate illegally. Opponents saying the law will lead to rampant racial profling and turn Arizonainto a virtual police state (Countdown, April 26, 2010).

Chris Matthews: You know, I just wish we could have a regular system like this, where youbring in a reasonable number o people who want to come to America—we’re the country o

immigrants you know—based upon how quickly we can assimilate people and become part o the country, and then bring in others to work periodically and go back home again. It seemsto me a rational country ought to be able to do this rationally, airly, and legally instead o thisgame that everybody’s playing. … The guys who want to put big ences up don’t want to dealwith the employment issue. … Why don’t we have a Social Security card not used or any otherpurpose except, i you want to work in America, you have to be who you say your are? What’swrong with that?

Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast : That’s absolutely right. It’s part o a larger project that probablyincreases the amount o legal immigration we have and provides a path to citizenship or atleast a lot o the illegal immigrants who are here now who are willing to do all the right things.




19

… There’s a huge supply. There’s a huge demand. No matter how much you militarize theborder, i people want those jobs enough, and the employers want them, they’re going to come

(Hardball , April 30, 2010).

Comprehensive immigration reform (CIR)

Opinion columns and articles about the need or CIR appeared sporadically throughout the year,usually triggered by a major immigrant rights protest, a speech by the president, or a momentary are-up in Congress. They conveyed a sense o urgency and rustration, as the immigration debate continuedto ester and solutions seemed out o reach.

One o the key fndings rom our last media analysis covering the period November 2008–July 2009was that although terms such as “overhaul” and “sweeping reorm” appeared regularly, there waslittle defnition or details as to what CIR would look like. That has changed. In particular, editorialsduring the more recent period gave the impression that there is an evolving consensus about whatcomprehensive immigration reorm means. The components most requently cited are border security,

workplace enorcement, a realistic visa program, and a path to legalization or those already inAmerica. Some examples:

The nation sorely needs to bring some 12 million undocumented immigrants out o theshadows as part o a comprehensive overhaul that ensures border saety, guarantees uturelabor needs, and promotes air and legal hiring practices (“Delivering on the promise,” TheMiami Herald , April 13, 2010).

We need leaders who push to enact comprehensive reorm. … Reorm must secure the borderso that the people entering the country are doing so legally and we know who they are. It musteliminate the access to jobs that migrants are willing to risk their lives to reach. It must includean efcient system to veriy worker eligibility and tough sanctions or employers who hirethe undocumented. It must provide a path to legalization that has to be earned by the current

undocumented population (“Stop Failing Arizona,” The Arizona Republic, May 2, 2010).

The ramework or comprehensive reorm, as outlined by Obama: Border security andworkplace enorcement to ensure workers are here legally. A exible and realistic visa programto match the number o visas with the actual needs o our business sector. And a path tolegalization or the 11 million already here (“Obama vs. Arizona,” Chicago Tribune, July 7,2010).

Many o the news articles about CIR covered the immigrant rights movement’s actions and itsmounting rustration with Congress and the Obama Administration. The headlines and lead sentencesdescribe a unifed movement in motion [boldace emphasis is ours].

“With chances dim, advocates push or immigration bill”

As President Obama vows to reocus Democrats’ attention on jobs and the economy, advocatesor overhauling the nation’s immigration laws say they are still gearing up or a battle in theSenate in coming weeks, despite ading hopes or victory (Spencer S. Hsu , The WashingtonPost , February 1, 2010).

“Groups mobilize or immigration reorm”Frustrated at the White House and Congress, immigrant advocates are rolling out a series o pressure tactics to push orward legalization or illegal immigrants and other reorms (TeresaWatanabe, Los Angeles Times, March 18, 2010).




“Immigrants heading to Washington to push reorms” Day laborers on oot rom Long Island and Caliornians who sold tamales to pay or their tripare expected to rally on Sunday in Washington, D.C., with tens o thousands o immigrants,

many o them undocumented Hispanics, to dramatize their pleas or immigration reorm(Deepti Hajela, The Associated Press, March 18, 2010).

“In Shadow o Health Care Vote, Immigrant Advocates Keep Pushing or Change” Immigrant advocates, rustrated with President Obama’s lack o progress on legislation tooverhaul the immigration system, called one month ago or a march in Washington that theysaid would display the strength o their numbers and would give the president the push heneeded to get the debate rolling in Congress (Julia Preston , The New York Times, March 21,2010).

At the same time, the news coverage emphasized gridlock inside the Beltway and the unlikelihoodthat immigration reorm would be on this year’s legislative agenda or a priority or the Obamaadministration. Timed to coincide with a major immigrant rights demonstration in Washington,

Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) published their op-ed, “Theright way to mend immigration,” in The Washington Post on March 19th. In it, they outlined theirbipartisan ramework or CIR. Arguing that the solution to the immigration system’s problems was“simple,” they laid out their “our pillar” plan, including “a tough but air path to legalization orthose already here.” But by the end o April, that eort had unraveled—a victim o partisan fghtingover climate change legislation. A Democratic proposal announced by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.)was then greeted with derision by Republican Senate leaders:

In a joint statement, [Sen. Lindsey] Graham and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the immigrationproposal is political gamesmanship. “It poisons the well or those o us who are workingtoward a more secure border and responsible, bipartisan reorm o our immigration laws,” thestatement said ( Erin Kelly, “New push or migrant reorm,” The Arizona Republic, April 30,

2010).

Law Enforcement Strategy

In our last media scan covering November 2008–July 2009, which included the closing months o the Bush administration and the beginning o the Obama administration, we ound that ederalenorcement—workplace raids, detentions, and deportations—was the dominant story, representingmore than hal o our sample articles. In our new scan, ederal enorcement represents only 10 percento the stories, which all into two groups: articles describing the Obama administration’s enorcementtactics, and internal and external challenges aced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enorcement(ICE). Examples rom the frst group include:

A Houston Chronicle review o actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enorcement shows

23 Texas companies… have been penalized since the start o the ederal fscal year in October.At the same time, statistics show workplace arrests declining, a shit rom the enorcementstrategies o the George W. Bush era (Alan Blinder, “Immigration fnes slap Texas frms…raidsdown as policy changes,” The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2010).

In a bid to remake the enorcement o ederal immigration laws, the Obama administrationis deporting record numbers o illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds o businesses thatblithely hire undocumented workers. … The eort is part o President Obama’s larger project“to make our national laws actually work,” as he put it in a speech this month at AmericanUniversity (Peter Slevin , “Record numbers being deported; Rise is part o Obama’s eorts toremake immigration laws,” The Washington Post , July 26, 2010).




21

The Obama administration, while deporting a record number o immigrants convicted o crimes, is sparing one group o illegal immigrants rom expulsion: students who came to theUnited States without papers when they were children (Julia Preston, “Administration Spares

Students in Deportations,” The New York Times, August 9, 2010).

Federal ofcials say they are compelling Massachusetts law enorcement agencies, including theState Police, to join a national program that checks the immigration status o everyone arrestedand fngerprinted by 2013, ofcials said yesterday. The planned rollout o the ederal SecureCommunities program has state ofcials, nonprofts, and local police chies scrambling todetermine the program’s impact in Massachusetts and whether it conicts with a policy barringthe State Police rom enorcing immigration law (Maria Sacchetti, “US pushes state to joinsecurity plan; Immigration checks raise issues or police,” The Boston Globe, October 6, 2010).

Internal and external challenges aced by ICE:

On a typical day, John Morton fnds himsel under assault rom the political right or ailing to

crack down on illegal immigration and rom the let or cracking down too aggressively (JerryMarkon , “ICE chie Morton takes plenty o political heat; Ariz. law puts him in a difcultspot,” The Boston Globe, July 20, 2010).

As it poises or urther immigration initiatives, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enorcement isstruggling with estering internal divisions between political appointees and career ofcials overhow to enorce laws and handle detainees acing deportation (Andrew Becker , “Immigrationpolicies sparking tensions within ICE; Obama administration stances on detentions aceinternal resistance,” The Washington Post, August 27, 2010).

The DREAM Act

Two high-visibility demonstrations by students received some coverage in the national press: The

Trail o Dreams, and a sit-in at Sen. John McCain’s Tucson ofce. The Trail o Dreams was an actioninitiated by our undocumented college students who have spent most o their lives in this country.They let Miami on January 1, 2010, and walked 1,500 miles to Washington, D.C., arriving there ourmonths later. Their main demand was the passage o the DREAM Act , a ederal law that would giveundocumented students who have been in the states or fve years the opportunity to earn conditionalpermanent residency i they complete two years in the military or two years at a our-year institution o higher education. The sit-in at Senator McCain’s ofce took place during the college graduation season.Five students dressed in caps and gowns risked deportation by revealing their immigration status inArizona while the new state law was in eect. They demanded McCain’s support or the DREAM Act .

All fve o the articles picked up in the scan struck a sympathetic tone and included numerous quotesrom the students themselves. They were also an advocacy vehicle or the DREAM Act . Examplesinclude:

“You live your lie with one idea o what you think you can be, what it is to live in thiscountry, and you wake up one morning and realize my reality is that I can only be a janitor”(Laura Wides-Munoz , “Youth trek rom Miami to DC or immigrant rights,” The Associated Press, January 1, 2010).

“I’m tired o coming back to school each semester and hearing about another riend who waspicked up and deported” (The Associated Press, Ibid .).

As illegal immigrants, they don’t qualiy or student aid and have trouble aording our-yearcolleges. And they can’t turn their studies into careers. “What you see is the all-American girl,”




Pacheco says. “Orchestra, cross-country, basketball, ROTC.” Not everybody sees that girl. Heramily in Miami is fghting deportation (David Montgomery , “For immigration, students takethe toughest course: action,” The Washington Post , May 1, 2010).

Midterm elections

As the midterm elections approached and the possibility o comprehensive immigration reormlegislation became increasingly remote, the Latino electorate’s disappointment with the DemocraticParty became newsworthy. There were a handul o stories about a last-ditch eort by Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid to pass the DREAM Act as an attachment to the deense authorization bill. Thesestories emphasized Latino disappointment with President Obama and the Democratic Party and theparty’s 11th-hour push to shore up the Latino vote. For example,

Chances or comprehensive immigration reorm have dimmed with the upcoming midtermelections, prompting Democrats to push a measure that would grant citizenship to illegalimmigrant students as a way to energize Latino votes. … Latino groups are disappointed

with Obama and Democrats or ailing to act on a campaign pledge in 2008 to pass sweepingimmigration reorm in the frst two years o a new administration (Gary Martin, “Dems courtLatinos with DREAM Act,” The Houston Chronicle, September 20, 2010).

In a Denver Post editorial, Sen. Reid’s eort was denounced as a “political maneuver that ailed,”and the Democrats were accused o lacking the political courage needed to approve the DREAMAct (“Equality takes a back seat again on the military ‘don’t ask’ don’t tell’ policy and the immigrantDREAM Act, Washington ailed to advance basic human rights,” September 23, 2010).

Latino disappointment was the subject o two Los Angeles Times articles in the week beore themidterm elections—one an editorial, and one a news article. The editorial urged Latino voters not to goalong with the “Don’t Vote” campaign launched by a wealthy conservative pundit, Robert de Posada:

Latinos who are rustrated with Congress’ ailure to adopt comprehensive immigration reormare being targeted with a lie: that the best strategy to achieve their goal is to stop participatingin the democratic process. Don’t vote. Be silent. Go uncounted to teach the politicians a lesson.But that approach cannot and will not work. No group in the United States has ever orwardedits political agenda by auto-disenranchisement (“Don’t ‘Don’t Vote,’” Los Angeles Times,October 21, 2010).

The news article covered President Obama’s interview on Univision Radio in which he wascharacterized as “heavily courting Latino voters in the fnal days o the all political campaign.” He wasquoted as saying:

Let me say this as an Arican American: We worked or decades on civil rights. … There is anotion that somehow i I had worked it hard enough, we could have magically done it. That’s

just not the way our system works. I I need 60 votes to get this done, then I’m going to have tohave some support rom the other side. I the Latino community decides to sit out this election,then there will be ew votes and it will be less likely to get done (Christi Parsons , The Nation,“Politics Now; Immigration; President urges Latino voters to keep the aith,” Los AngelesTimes, October 26, 2010).

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Joe Arpaio, the Sheri o Maricopa County, Arizona, is known or his harsh views and punitivepractices regarding undocumented immigrants. Many argue that Arpaio violates the civil rights o Latino citizens and immigrants, and the U.S. Justice Department is investigating his conduct. Protests




23

and lawsuits against the combative sheri were the subject o several news articles. An Associated Press story reported that “Thousands o immigrant rights advocates marched in ront o a county jailin Phoenix Saturday in a protest that was aimed at Maricopa County Sheri Joe Arpaio’s immigration

eorts and was marked by a clash between a small group o protesters and police ofcers” (JacquesBilleaud, “Thousands protest sheri’s immigration eorts,” January 17, 2010). A later AP storyreported on Arpaio’s reusal to cooperate with a civil rights investigation by the Justice Department(Pete Yost, “Justice gives Az. Sheri deadline in rights case,” The Associated Press, August 3, 2010).

Taken as a whole, these articles give only vague details about Arpaio’s anti-immigrant actions.One article reports only that “[h]e has won praise and condemnation or having deputies swarmneighborhoods, stopping people in search o criminals and illegal immigrants” (Dennis Wagner andEmily Bazar, “Arizona ‘ground zero’ o immigration fght,” USA Today, January 15, 2010). TheAssociated Press article about the protest quotes only a Phoenix police spokesman who emphasizesviolence he attributes to the protesters; none o the protesters is quoted and no inormation is givenabout the reasons or the protest except or the ollowing brie paragraph: “Critics have accuseddeputies working in Arpaio’s immigration eorts o racial profling, which the sheri denies. He sayshis deputies approach people when they have probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.”In general, Arpaio had the last word in these articles and he positioned himsel as a victim o unaircriticism. In one he’s quoted as saying, “They’re zeroing in on the wrong guy. They ought to bezeroing in on the president” (Jacques Billeaud, “Thousands protest sheri’s immigration eorts,” TheAssociated Press, January 17, 2010). In another, he said, “I’m not going to ignore the laws because o pressure rom Washington or demonstrators or politicians” (Dennis Wagner and Emily Bazar, “Arizona‘ground zero’ o immigration fght,” USA Today, January 15, 2010).

Immigration and the economic crisis

The scan produced only three articles that linked immigration and the country’s economic difculties—one eature and two business stories. The eature—one o the very ew articles in the scan that

described the plight o individuals—told the story o a couple who returned to El Salvador ater livingin suburban Maryland or many years: “Like many immigrants in Prince George’s County, Jose, 59,couldn’t fnd a steady job in the decimated American job market. But unlike many Latino immigrantswho are riding out the recession, Jose and Maria returned to their homeland” (Elahe Izadi, “Economicgloom drives Salvadoran couple home,” The Washington Post , March 18, 2010).

The business stories tended to play down the impact that the legalization o undocumented immigrantworkers would have on the economy. A Los Angeles Times story, “Turning down the temperature onillegal immigration,” ocused on the major fnding o a new study released by the Public Policy Instituteo Caliornia: “Legalizing most currently unauthorized workers would have no appreciable eect onthe labor market” (Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2010). The Arizona Republic rana 2,000-word story in its Sunday business section, titled “Arizona’s Shadow Economy.” It reportedthat “up to hal o illegal immigrants, perhaps 152,000 or more in the state, are believed to work ina large shadow economy, where workers are compensated in cash, don’t report the income, and don’tpay income taxes.” Continuing, the article pointed out that, “the truth is, i most illegal immigrantswork in low-skill, low-paying jobs, they probably would not pay much i anything in income taxes. …The economic impact o illegal immigrants is difcult to measure because so many participate in theshadow economy” (The Arizona Republic, July 25, 2010).

Birthright citizenship

On July 29th, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed during an interview on Fox News that theFourteenth Amendment be changed to eliminate the right to citizenship or anyone born in the United




States. He claimed that people came to this country to “drop” a child so that he or she would be a U.S.citizen. This trial balloon created a brie storm o controversy, mostly on talk-show radio and cabletelevision.

Our scan picked up an op-ed and an editorial, both condemning the proposal in strong terms. In an op-ed column, E. J. Dionne, Jr., excoriated the proposal and Sen. Graham’s claim that immigrants “comehere to drop a child. … Nothing should make Republicans prouder,” he writes, “than their party’s rolein passing what are known as the Civil War or reconstruction amendments,” including the FourteenthAmendment. “That is the American tradition and the Republican tradition. Senator Graham, pleasedon’t throw it away” (“Is the GOP shedding a birthright?” The Washington Post , August 5, 2010).The San Francisco Chronicle ran an editorial attacking the proposal as “straight-up pandering roma political pro looking to reconnect with immigration hard-liners.” It continues, “This sideshow is thelast thing the complicated, emotional topic o immigration reorm needs” (“The wrong way to fx abroken border policy,” August 22, 2010).

Spokespeople

The voices elevated in the news media as sources played a signifcant role in raming and positioning astory. They also provided insight into the angles that journalists chose to highlight. What spokespeoplesaid and whom or what they represented can shape a story and impact the public’s perception o anissue. To that end, we scanned coverage to identiy the types o spokespeople that are most requentlycalled upon to “tell their story” about immigration.

Print media

Pro-immigrant voices signifcantly outnumbered anti-immigrant voices in our sample. Immigrant rightsadvocates and pro-immigrant elected ofcials and community members were quoted 72 percent o thetime, and anti-immigrant advocates and anti-reorm elected ofcials were quoted 28 percent o thetime.

This media scan shows that immigrant rights advocates, activists, and individuals rom thecommunities they represent have risen in prominence as sources. In a departure rom past analyseswhere we ound that the policy debate was dominated by politicians, this sample o articles reectsthe increased activism and visibility o the organized immigrant rights movement and its allies whoare quoted more requently than any other category o spokespeople. Overall, their quotes emphasizethe urgency or ederal reorm, the danger o more Arizonas, and rustration with Washington.Also notable is the breadth o the movement as reected in the large number o individuals andorganizations cited. More than 40 individuals rom almost as many organizations were quoted inour sample. They represented national and local groups and coalitions, labor and aith organizations,business coalitions, and service providers. (See Appendix I or a list o organizations cited.) Themajority o other pro-immigrant individuals quoted were demonstrators at immigrant rights protests.

President Obama and ICE director John Morton were the most oten quoted administrationrepresentatives. The most requently quoted Democrats were Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.), Rep. Ed Pastor(Ariz.), Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (Ill.), and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. That only three Members o Congress were quoted with any requency at all suggests some timidity among ederal lawmakersabout speaking out on this hot-button issue.

Anti-immigrant advocates’ voices were largely sidelined in this policy debate. Spokespeople such asSteven Camarota and Mark Krikorian (Center or Immigration Studies), and Ira Mehlman (Federationor American Immigration Reorm)—whose voices were so prominent during the spring 2007 Senatedebate—played a minor role this time around, representing only eight percent o the quotes.




25

Most o the Republicans who were quoted were state-level elected ofcials rom Arizona deending SB1070 (e.g., Governor Jan Brewer, Rep. John Kavanagh, and Sen. Russell Pearce). At the ederal level,the two Republican senators rom Arizona, John McCain and Jon Kyl, were quoted most.

Table 2. people The prInT medIa quoTed mosT frequenTly In ImmIgraTIon sTorIes

Immigrant rights advocates 33%

Republicans 19%

Individuals (immigrants, protesters, students, community residents) 15%

Democrats (except the President) 13%

President or Administration Ofcials 11%

Anti-immigrant advocates 8%


Voices o pro-immigrant advocates:

“People are rustrated and disappointed,” said Angela Sanbrano o the National Alliance o Latin American and Caribbean Communities. “The message o the march is that the timeor promises is over and we want concrete action” (Teresa Watanabe, “Groups mobilize orimmigration reorm,” Los Angeles Times, March 18, 2010).

“Absent our unity, immigration reorm will always be put o to another day,” said AngelicaSalas o the Coalition or Humane Immigrant Rights o Los Angeles. “We need to show apowerul orce that we won’t give up on immigration reorm in 2010” (Teresa Watanabe,“Mayor backs Ariz. boycott,”Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2010).

“This is a way or people to release rustration and demand better legislation in a positiveway,” said Julie Gonzales, state director o Reorm Immigration or America” (Annette

Espinoza and Heather McWilliams, “Chanting or change thousands march against Ariz. law,”The Denver Post , May 2, 2010).

“This is the most extreme and dangerous o all the recent state and local laws purporting todeal with immigrant issues, and it has triggered outrage and opposition rom virtually everysegment o society,” said Lucas Guttentag, director o the ACLU Immigrant rights Project.“This law turns ‘Show me your papers’ into the Arizona state motto and racial profling intothe Arizona state plan” (Alia Beard Rau, “14 organizations, 10 individuals fle suit over SB1070,” The Arizona Republic, May 18, 2010).

“Mostly what it’s going to do is drive some number o immigrants to other states and giveArizona the reputation as the state that took the lead in what will become known as American-style ethnic cleansing,” said Frank Sharry, executive director o America’s Voice. “I amhorrifed that states would say the way to address this problem is to put a target on the backo a whole ethnic group and try to terrorize undocumented amily members out o the state”(Dan Nowicki and Daniel Gonzalez, “SB 1070 exodus pushing problem to other states,” TheArizona Republic, June 30, 2010).

Voices o elected ofcials:

Democrats and Republicans were quoted in about equal measure. The Democratic message emphasizedsolutions and the importance o respecting civil liberties and national values. The Republican messagepitted the state o Arizona against the ederal government and prioritized border control.




Democrats:

“The signing o new immigration laws by Arizona’s governor provides another importantexample o why we need to fx our broken system,” [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reidsaid Friday in a prepared statement. “While the frst step in immigration reorm must includeborder security, we cannot approach this important issue in a piecemeal ashion. Republicansand Democrats need to work together to pass comprehensive reorm that is tough on peoplewho break the law, air to taxpayers, respectul o civil liberties, and practical to implement”(Erin Kelly, “Law revives calls or ederal action on migrant reorm,” The Arizona Republic,April 24, 2010).

“Make no mistake, our immigration system is broken, and ater so many years in whichWashington has ailed to meet its responsibilities, Americans are right to be rustrated. … Butthe answer isn’t to undermine undamental principles that defne us as a nation,” Obama said(Erica Werner, “Obama: Begin work this year on immigration reorm,” The Associated Press,May 6, 2010).

“GOP lawmakers, by and large, think our immigration policies should drive out, deport, orotherwise get rid o those people and their amilies. … We have a better plan. What Democratspropose… is to make those immigrants register with the government, pay fnes, pay taxes, learnEnglish, and get in the system as a condition o staying” (Luis Gutierrez, “Immigration ProblemRequires a Federal Solution,” U.S. News & World Report , July 30, 2010).

Republicans:

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting or Washington to act,” Gov. Brewersaid at Friday’s signing announcement. “But decades o ederal inaction and misguided policyhave created a dangerous and unacceptable situation” (Kevin Johnson, “Ariz. immigration lawcreates rit; Measure could have national implications,” USA Today, April 26, 2010).

“The act that the border hasn’t been secured yet raises the question o whether people whowant comprehensive reorm are holding that hostage,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl,R-Ariz. “The sense seems to be that ‘I we secure the border, then you all wouldn’t haveany incentive to compromise with us on comprehensive reorm.’ You don’t have to havecomprehensive reorm to secure the border, but you do have to have a secure border to havecomprehensive reorm” (Dan Nowicki and Daniel Gonzalez, “SB 1070 exodus pushingproblem to other states,” The Arizona Republic, June 30, 2010).

“Instead o wasting taxpayer resources fling a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining thatthe law would be burdensome,” Mr. McCain said in a joint statement with Senator John Kyl,Republican o Arizona, “the Obama administration should have ocused its eorts on workingwith Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its eorts to act wherethe ederal government has ailed to take responsibility” (Randal C. Archibold, “Judge BlocksArizona’s Law on Immigrants,” The New York Times, July 29, 2010).

Broadcast media

We counted a total o 76 appearances in our sample, either as program guests or in interviews. As inthe case o the print media, pro-immigrant voices were more dominant than anti-immigrant voices,although not by as wide a margin.




27

Table 3. people mosT frequenTly quoTed on maInsTream TelevIsIon news programs4

Republican ofce-holders 30%

Immigrant rights advocates 22%

The President 15%

Pundits opposing SB 1070 13%

Democratic ofce-holders other than the President 9%

Pundits supporting SB 1070 6%

Anti-immigrant advocates 5%


Opponents o Arizona’s SB 1070 outnumbered supporters in studio appearances. Elected ofcialsincluded Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Cali.),and Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor. Immigrant rights advocates were the most requent in-studio

guests. They included Clarissa Martinez, National Council o La Raza; Maria Cordona, Democraticstrategist; Cathy Areu, Catalina; Frank Sharry, America’s Voice; and Bishop Minerva Garcano, UnitedMethodist Church. Also arguing strongly against the Arizona law were Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal Constitution; Paul Krugman, The New York Times; Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation; and PhilDonahue, ormer talk-show host. Expressing concerns about the wisdom or constitutionality o thelaw were a number o conservative pundits including Alex Castellanos (Republican consultant), DavidBrooks (The New York Times), and Matthew Dowd (ormer Bush strategist).

In-studio guests who supported the law included J. D. Hayworth, ormer Arizona Congressman andU.S. Senate candidate; Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Ariz.); Sheri Paul Babeu, Pinal County, Arizona;Michael Hethmon, Immigration Law Reorm Institute; Roy Beck, NumbersUSA; Bay Buchanan,Republican strategist; and Adolo Franco, Republican strategist. Also arguing or it were commentatorsLou Dobbs, George Will, and Mark Smith.

President Obama was not present in the studio or the programs we looked at, but clips o his speecheswere included in hal o them. By ar the most popular clip was rom his April 23rd speech in the RoseGarden at a ceremony honoring U.S. service members becoming citizens:

“Our ailure to act responsibly at the ederal level will only open the door to irresponsibilityby others. And that includes, or example, the recent eorts in Arizona, which threaten toundermine basic notions o airness we cherish as Americans as well as the trust betweenpolice and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us sae” (“New Immigration Lawin Arizona Stirs Controversy; President May Address Immigration Reorm Ater FinancialRegulatory Reorm,” CNN Newsroom, CNN, April 24, 2010).

The same clip was used by ABC, CBS, PBS, and NBC. Its counterpart was a clip o Gov. Jan Brewer

speaking at the signing ceremony; it was aired multiple times by most o the networks:

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting or Washington to act. But decades o ederal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation”(“New Immigration Law in Arizona Stirs Controversy; President May Address ImmigrationReorm Ater Financial Regulatory Reorm,” CNN Newsroom, CNN, April 24, 2010).

4 All the Republicans appearing in the news programs supported SB 1070 and all the Democrats opposed it.




Narratives

What overarching story is the mainstream media telling about immigration? What is the big takeaway

or the reading, listening, and viewing American public? Several narratives are dominant today and,in broad strokes, they oer the public a ramework or understanding the problem and or makingjudgments about policy alternatives.

Dominant print media narratives

X The immigration system is broken and the ederal government is responsible or fxing it,but the administration and Congress are unwilling or unable to fnd a solution. The public isrustrated and increasingly angry.

This narrative came through in most o the opinion columns and news reports. Supporterso Arizona’s law argued that the state had to act to control its border with Mexico since theederal government wasn’t ulflling its responsibility to do so. Supporters o the immigrantrights movement accused the ederal government o abdicating its responsibility to enactcomprehensive reorm, including bringing the 11 million out o the shadows. In this narrative,partisan gridlock in Congress and a lack o orceulness on the part o President Obama inpushing or his campaign promise to reorm the system are the major obstacles to change, whichis urgently needed.

X The Arizona law is misguided.

Although Governor Brewer and other supporters o the law are quoted, the bulk o the coverageis negative. Arguments that the law panders to ear, will bring about racial and ethnic profling,hurts the state’s image and reputation, and is contrary to American values dominate thisnarrative, which is reinorced by strongly worded editorials and prominent coverage o massprotests.

X Comprehensive immigration reorm is the solution.

This narrative communicates the positive idea that a solution to this huge systemic problem ispossible and expresses an emerging national consensus about the elements o reorm. Throughboth op-eds and news articles, the term “comprehensive immigration reorm,” once largelyundefned, has begun to take concrete orm. It is usually described as some combination o border saety and control, a path to legalization or the undocumented, a exible visa programto match the country’s economic needs, air hiring practices, employer sanctions, and a systemo worker eligibility verifcation. Solution-oriented language gives CIR an aura o inevitability.

Dominant broadcast media narratives

The dominant mainstream broadcast narratives during the week ollowing the enactment o SB 1070

were that the state’s action had brought the immigration issue to a head and that the nation was lockedin a seemingly insurmountable dispute over what to do about illegal immigration. Solution-orientedrhetoric was less visible than in the print media. Rather, debate and sharp disagreement characterizedboth the ormat and the content o most o the news programs in our sample.

MSNBC hosts and guests echoed the dominant print media narratives: the system is broken; theArizona law is misguided; comprehensive reorm is the solution.

The opposition narrative

Anti-immigrant advocates such as Ira Mehlman o the Federation or American Immigration Reorm




29

and Steven Camarota o the Center or Immigration Studies were not quoted requently in oursample. Instead, the opposition narrative was carried by Republican elected ofcials in Congress andin Arizona, and by conservative talk-show fgures like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. The ollowing

quote rom Hannity sums up the opposition narrative, which is based on the overwhelmingly scarceresources and the threat to national security: “Because we know the impact o illegal immigration,America can no longer aord it. It’s impacting our criminal justice system, our health care system, oureducational system. We have people… i somebody can just walk across the border because they wantto get a job and they want more opportunity, so, too, can a terrorist, somebody who wants to destroyan American city” (Hannity, Fox News Network, April 23, 2010).

Penetration of the core narrative

In 2008 The Opportunity Agenda collaborated with more than 150 immigrant rights leaders to mapout a proactive and unifed “core narrative” that advocates could use to guide their public statementsabout the need or comprehensive reorm. (A core narrative is not a message or slogan but, rather,an overarching “big story” rooted in shared values and priorities.) Each o the elements o the pro-immigrant core narrative—(1) workable solutions; that (2) uphold our nation’s values; and (3) move usorward together—represent a set o ideas about pragmatism, national principles, and progress throughcooperation, respectively. A range o diering messages or dierent audiences can and should ftwithin the three narratives. The outcome o this process was an agreement to crat messages consistentwith the overarching narrative o promoting workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and move us orward together.

To gauge whether and to what extent the core narrative was entering into the public discourse, welooked or quotes and articles that reected the ollowing broad themes:

X Workable solutions—statements and reporting showing that comprehensive immigration reormand other pro-immigrant policies are practical and will work; that the pro-immigrant side o

the debate is working to solve the immigration problem; and that anti-immigrant proposals likebuilding walls and deporting 11 million people are not realistic and reect anger rather thancommon sense.

X Upholding our nation’s values—statements and reporting showing the comprehensiveimmigration reorm and other pro-immigrant polices are consistent with American values, andemphasizing actual values such as airness, accountability, order, amily, and dignity.

X Moving orward together—statements and reporting showing the contributions immigrantsmake to the national economy and to the abric o our society, that they are creating jobs,rejuvenating communities, and enriching our cultural landscape.

We ound that all three themes were present in the mainstream media coverage over the past year. Aspreviously noted, one element o the mainstream print media’s dominant narrative is that a solution

is possible, that it is called “comprehensive immigration reorm,” and that it comprises a number o dierent elements including a path to legalization. Variously described as “the ederal solution,” “theour pillars plan,” or “the ramework or comprehensive reorm,” editorial and news reporting haspositioned CIR as the only viable alternative to the current “broken system” and, as noted, the sheerrequency o solution-oriented language gives CIR an aura o inevitability.

The passage o SB 1070 generated a robust national discussion about American values. The dangers o racial profling, discrimination, and harassment o Latinos came up over and over again in both printand network media coverage. President Obama’s much-quoted statement—that laws like SB 1070“threaten to undermine basic notions o airness we cherish as Americans as well as the trust betweenpolice and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us sae”—skillully connected the values o




airness and law and order, a theme reinorced in quotes rom police spokespeople who worried thatsuch laws “would likely negatively eect and undermine the level o trust and cooperation betweenlocal police and immigrant communities” (Kevin Johnson, “Ariz. immigration law creates rit,” USA

Today, April 26, 2010).

The theme o “moving orward together” was expressed through requent allusions to the importanceo immigration to the American economy. Political leaders, academics, and spokespeople rom thebusiness community argued that CIR was “essential to ensuring America’s uture economic prosperity”and that reorm would “guarantee the country’s uture labor needs.” Speaking or “a coalition o chie executives o several major corporations,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “To remaincompetitive in the 21st century, we need eective immigration reorm that invites people to contributeto our shared success. … I you want to solve the unemployment problem, you have to open the doorsto immigrants who will come here, create businesses, because when the tide comes in, everybody’sboat rises” (Sara Kugler Frazier, “Coalition calls or immigration reorm,” Detroit Free Press, June 25,2010).

Examples o coverage reecting the core narrative:

The tragedy is that the gridlock is avoidable. Democrats and Republicans agree on most o a unifed, politically viable, and workable immigration reorm package. Both parties agreethat border security is a key part o any strategy. … Both parties also agree that we need aoolproo identifcation system that holds employers accountable and ends unauthorized work.… And we also agree that we need some level o legal immigration. Legal immigrants havebeen an engine o economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship on this continent orlonger than we have been a nation. … The problem is that Democrats and Republicans cannotagree on what to do with the estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants already here. … GOPlawmakers, by and large, think our immigration policies should drive out, deport, or otherwiseget rid o those people and their amilies. … Democrats, by and large, think that it is unrealistic

to believe that a group larger than the population o Georgia will up and disappear” (LuisGutierrez, “Immigration Problem Requires a Federal Solution,” U.S. News & World Report , July 30, 2010).

Maybe Graham and his oddball crusade [to repeal birthright citizenship] to rewrite theConstitution can do the country a avor. Toss out his idea and then take up the challenge o fnding a workable immigration policy (Editorial, “The wrong way to fx a broken borderpolicy,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2010).

The president cited the Arizona law as a reason or action on immigration legislation. “Makeno mistake, our immigration system is broken, and ater so many years in which Washingtonhas ailed to meet its responsibilities, Americans are right to be rustrated. … But the answerisn’t to undermine undamental principles that defne us as a nation” (Erica Werner, “Obama:

Begin work this year on immigration reorm,” The Associated Press, May 6, 2010).

“O course this [SB 1070] is an invitation to racial profling. Everyone with a Spanish surname,everyone with a certain look, you may or may not be Latino. There are people in my amilywho look as i they could be Latino. It harkens back to apartheid when all black people inSouth Arica were required to carry documents in order to move rom one part o town toanother” (Cynthia Tucker on The Roundtable; The Week’s “Politics,” ABC, April 25, 2010 ).

“I’m extremely disappointed. I think it [SB 1070] hurts the Democratic values o this countryand it’s impractical. It’s not a reorm. It’s unenorceable. It’s going to spur racial profling. …Hopeully, what this will spur is what the Congress has ailed to do. And that is comprehensive




31

immigration reorm, an earned legalization program, accountability, where the 11 million thatare here, speak English, prove that they have a viable background check, get in back o theline. We do need more border enorcement, an employer verifcation system” (New Mexico

Governor Bill Richardson on The Rachel Maddow Show, April 23, 2010 ).

“One o the best opportunities lies in the DREAM Act , which would allow promisingundocumented students to start a path toward citizenship i they meet certain standards. …The bill is a win not only or those students, but also or the country. In act, the United Statesdoesn’t have nearly enough students going through to fnish college… we can hardly aordto obstruct ambitious, hardworking young people who want to attend college and join thegreat American mainstream” (Cynthia Tucker, “Illegal, but eventually invaluable,” The Atlanta

Journal-Constitution,June 20, 2010).




Public Opinion on

ImmigrationIntroduction

The public opinion section is based on a synthesis and meta-analysis o attitudinal tracking surveys andrecent public opinion studies by nationally known and reputable research organizations, media outlets,and advocacy groups. All o the data examined are publicly available. We reviewed original data rom22 public opinion studies, the majority o which were surveys. All were conducted during 2010. Wealso looked at existing attitudinal surveys that have tracked opinion changes and trends in the United

States with respect to immigrants and immigration.

To synthesize and better understand the public opinion data collected over the past year, we groupedsurvey fndings into our categories:

X Immigrants and immigration

X The immigration system and reorm

X The Arizona SB 1070 law, due process, and law enorcement

X Birthright citizenship

Immigrants and immigration

The American public is conicted about whether immigration and immigrants in general are good orbad or the country. The majority continues to say immigration, on the whole, is a good thing, thoughthe public has been less positive about it since 2009 than it was at most points in the past decade.

fIgure 1. on The whole, do you ThInk ImmIgraTIon Is a good ThIng or a bad ThIng for ThIs counTry Today?

% Good thing % Bad thing

62

52

5861

67

6064

58 57

31

4236

34

28

3330

36 36

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: “Amid Immigration Debate, Americans’ Views Ease Slightly,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, July 8–11, 2010.




33

When the question is more specifc, the public is evenly split on the role immigrants play in U.S. society,with 44 percent saying newcomers “threaten traditional American customs and values” and 44 percentsaying they “strengthen American society” (“Opinions About Immigration” in Growing Opposition to

Increased Oshore Drilling , Pew Research Center, June 24, 2010).5

As has long been the case, views about the undocumented are more negative, although research alsoindicates a signifcant degree o ambivalence. On the one hand, a majority (55 percent) o Americanssay they have an unavorable view o “illegal immigrants.”6

According to the Public Religion Research Institute’s survey, Democrats, the unafliated, and liberalsare somewhat more positive: bare majorities o each group say they have a avorable view o “illegal”immigrants (51 percent, 51 percent, and 56 percent, respectively) (“Religion, Values, and ImmigrationReorm: National Survey,” Public Religion Research Institute, April 14, 2010). On the other hand,when asked whether or not they are “sympathetic” towards “illegal” immigrants, a majority o Americans (64 percent) answered in the afrmative, and only 17 percent said they were “veryunsympathetic” (“Americans Value Both Aspects o Immigration Reorm,” USA Today /Gallup Poll,

May 1–2, 2010).7

The idea that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our economy and on public services continuesto have traction. When asked which statement comes closer to their point o view, most Americans(62 percent) chose “illegal immigrants cost the taxpayers too much by using government serviceslike public education and medical services”; only 32 percent chose “illegal immigrants in the longrun become productive citizens and pay their air share o taxes” (“Americans Closely Divided OverImmigration Reorm Priority,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, June 11–13, 2010). An even larger percentage(74 percent) agrees that “illegal immigrants do more to weaken the U.S. economy because they don’tpay taxes but use public services” (“CBS News/ New York Times Poll,” April 28–May 2, 2010).

At the same time, a large majority (84 percent) agrees that the American economy would beneft i current “illegal” immigrants became tax-paying citizens (“Religion, Values, and Immigration Reorm:National Survey,” Public Religion Research Institute, April 14, 2010). When asked which comes closerto “how you think about the issue o immigration and the economy,” 67 percent chose the statement:“We would be better o i people who are in the United States illegally became legal taxpayers so theycan pay their air share” over “We would be better o i people who are in the United State illegallylet the country because they are taking away jobs that Americans need,” which was chosen by 28percent (“Nationwide Poll: Majority Support or Immigration Reorm Holds Strong Amidst WeakEconomy,” America’s Voice/Benenson Strategy Group, December 19–21, 2009).

5 An almost identical split was evident in another poll taken at about the same time: 47 percent agreed that “immigrationadds to our character and strengthens the U.S. because it brings diversity, new workers, and new creative talent to this country”; 44percent agreed that “immigration detracts rom our character and weakens the U.S. because it puts too many burdens on governmentservices, causes language barriers, and creates housing problems” (“NBC News Survey,” NBC News/Hart/McIntur, May 20–23,

2010).6 A national survey commissioned by the Public Religion Research Institute tested the terms “illegal immigrants” versus“undocumented immigrants” and ound that a majority o Americans view “illegal immigrants” slightly more positively than“undocumented immigrants.” A majority o 55 percent had an unavorable view o illegal immigrants, but an even larger majority (62percent) had an unavorable view o undocumented immigrants (“Religion, Values, and Immigration Reorm: National Survey, April14, 2010). Westen Strategies ound the same trend :“Voters respond best to the term ‘illegal immigrants’” (“Speaking to Americansabout Immigration and American Values,” Westen Strategies conducted or America’s Voice/Media Matters,, February 2010). However,The Opportunity Agenda’s survey o Arican Americans, Hispanics, and White Progressives uncovered dierences based on race andethnicity: Majorities o Arican Americans and Hispanics thought the term “undocumented immigrants” was “more appropriate” than“illegal immigrants” (54 percent and 60 percent, respectively) while White Progressives thought “illegal immigrants” was the moreappropriate phrase (58 percent) (In Play: Arican American, Hispanic, and Progressive White Voters on Immigration Reorm, TheOpportunity Agenda/GK, September 2010).7 The breakdown in that poll was: Very sympathetic (24 percent); Somewhat sympathetic (40 percent); Somewhatunsympathetic (17 percent); Very unsympathetic (17 percent).




Views about the impact o undocumented immigrants on the job market are divided. The PublicReligion Research Institute survey conducted in April 2010 ound that the public is evenly split overwhether or not undocumented immigrants take jobs that American workers want: 50 percent disagree,

48 percent agree. That survey also ound that Americans with less education were more likely tobelieve immigrants take jobs that Americans want: 58 percent with a high school education or lessthought so.8 Research commissioned by The Opportunity Agenda showed that a large majority o Arican Americans (68 percent) believed that the high rate o black unemployment was due to “thelegacy o racial discrimination, poor educational opportunities, and the decline o actory jobs” ratherthan the presence o undocumented immigrants in the workorce (In Play: Arican American, Hispanic,and Progressive White Voters on Immigration Reorm, The Opportunity Agenda/Gk Roper PublicAairs and Media, September 2010).

The immigration system and reform

Nationwide polling o the general public and specifc subgroups demonstrates widespread agreementabout the overall state o the country’s immigration system and about the importance o bringingabout reorm. The belie that the immigration system is “broken” is almost universal. In the PublicReligion Research Institute’s survey, only 7 percent o Americans said the system was working, while amajority (56 percent) said it was completely or mostly broken; another 34 percent said it was workingbut with major problems. Similar views prevailed among three important constituencies in the eortto build support or CIR: Arican Americans, Hispanics, and White Progressives. When presentedwith two statements describing the state o the immigration system, large majorities o each group (66percent, 71 percent, and 73 percent, respectively) agreed that “the immigration system is undamentallybroken and major reorm is necessary” (In Play: Arican American, Hispanic, and Progressive WhiteVoters on Immigration Reorm).

Americans also overwhelmingly agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem, and a majority(61 percent) says it is a “very serious” problem (“CBS News Poll,” August 20–24, 2010). Although

immigration is a mid-ranking concern, oered less requently in response to an open-ended questionabout the nation’s “most important problem” than the economy, unemployment, and the ederal defcit(“Americans Value Both Aspects o Immigration Reorm,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, May 1–2, 2010),9 voters eel a sense o urgency about the need or “comprehensive immigration reorm.” When askedwhether they would tell Congress to take action now or wait, 76 percent chose “take action now,”and 67 percent elt strongly about it (“Findings rom a Survey o 800 Registered Voters Nationwide,”America’s Voice/Lake Research Partners/Public Opinion Strategies, May 13–19, 2010).10

Public opinion research conducted soon ater Arizona passed SB 1070 indicated that even thewidespread support or Arizona’s action (see below) was largely due to the public’s increasingrustration with the ederal government’s inability to enact comprehensive reorm. Just weeks ater thelaw was enacted, America’s Voice commissioned Lake Research Partners to conduct a national survey

o registered voters. One o its major fndings was that support or comprehensive immigration reormwas stronger than ever, and those who supported the Arizona law were actually more likely to supportcomprehensive reorm. They also ound that voters saw immigration policy as a national issue andwanted ederal action, not state-by-state laws. The researchers thereore concluded that support or

8 In a June 2010 survey, the split was 30 percent (take jobs away) to 59 percent (take unwanted jobs) (“June 2010 PoliticalSurvey,” Pew Research Center or the People & the Press, June 16–20, 2010). And in August, it was 39 percent (take jobs away) to 51percent (take jobs Americans don’t want) (“CBS News Poll,” August 20–24, 2010).9 In a July 8–11 Gallup poll, immigration ranked ourth among the “most important problems acing the country.”10 In a poll taken at the time o the midterm elections, 67 percent o voters said they would “support Congress passingcomprehensive immigration reorm”; 55 percent indicated strong support (“Election Eve/Night Omnibus,” Lake Research Partners,October 31–November 2, 2010).




35

the Arizona law came out o a desire or action and rustration with inaction on an issue that demandsa solution (“Findings rom a Survey o 800 Registered Voters Nationwide,” America’s Voice/LakeResearch Partners/Public Opinion Strategies, May 13–19, 2010).11

A majority o voters (56 percent) think immigration should be the sole province o the ederalgovernment; among those who avored the Arizona law, most did so because o the ederalgovernment’s ailure to solve the problem. When presented with head-to-head messages about the roleo the ederal government versus the state-by-state approach, most voters (53 percent) preerred to seea national, comprehensive solution (“Findings rom a Survey o 800 Registered Voters Nationwide,

May 13–19, 2010).12

Americans think that improving border control and “developing a plan to deal with the large numbero illegal immigrants who are already living in the U.S.” are equally important. When asked aboutthose two goals o immigration policy, a total o 89 percent agreed that border control is important(42 percent say “extremely important”) and 90 percent agree that developing a plan or those alreadyliving in the United States is important (36 percent say “extremely important” (“Americans Value Both

Aspects o Immigration Reorm,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, May 1–2, 2010).

Americans strongly support (78 percent) comprehensive reorm when it is described as ollows: “Underthis proposal, the ederal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employerswho knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States wouldbe required to register with the ederal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes,learn English, and go to the back o the line or U.S. citizenship” (“Findings rom a Survey o 800Registered Voters Nationwide,” America’s Voice/Lake Research Partners/Public Opinion Strategies,May 13–19, 2010). Support remained unchanged at the time o the midterm elections: 81 percent o voters avored the proposal, 68 percent “strongly,” and 76 percent agreed with the ollowing statement:“Deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States is unrealistic” (“ElectionEve/Night Omnibus,” Lake Research Partners, October 31–November 2, 2010).

In The Opportunity Agenda’s online survey o Arican American, Hispanic, and Progressive Whitelikely voters, the policy proposal that was most avorably rated by all three groups called orimproving border security and requiring “illegal immigrants” to pass a criminal background checkbeore getting legal status, to pay taxes, and to learn English. This policy was avored by 85 percento Arican Americans, 84 percent o Hispanics, and 87 percent o Progressive Whites (In Play: AricanAmerican, Hispanic, and Progressive White Voters on Immigration Reorm, The Opportunity Agenda/ Gk Roper Public Aairs and Media, September 2010).

A number o recent surveys show that even when decoupled rom border security—a concreteexpression o the strong desire or “law and order” in immigration policy—the concept o earnedlegalization or immigrants already living in this country fnds wide support today. According tothe Pew Research Center or the People & the Press, the number o Americans who avor providing

“illegal” immigrants with a way to obtain citizenship has increased by 10 points over the past threeyears. When asked, “Thinking about immigrants who are currently living in the United States illegally,do you avor or oppose providing a way or illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legalcitizenship i they pass background checks, pay fnes, and have jobs?” Fity-eight percent answered

11 A poll conducted in June supported those fndings; it ound that 58 percent o the public supported the Arizona law, and 57percent supported a path to legalization (“Nearly Six in 10 Back Arizona Law,” ABC News/ Washington Post Poll: Immigration, June3–6, 2010).12 At the time just beore the midterm elections in November, 56 percent o voters agreed that immigration was a nationalproblem that should be dealt with at the ederal level; 20 percent said it should be let up to individual states; and 19 percent said both(“Election Eve/Night Omnibus,” Lake Research Partners, October 31–November 2, 2010).




afrmatively in December 2007, 63 percent in May 2009, and 68 percent in June 2010. Support ishighest among Hispanics (83 percent), whites who have attended college (74 percent), those youngerthan 30 (76 percent), those between 30–49 (70 percent), and non-Hispanic blacks (69 percent)

(“Opinions About Immigration” in Growing Opposition to Increased Oshore Drilling , Pew ResearchCenter or the People & the Press, June 24, 2010).

Overall support increases when paying taxes is included as an explicit requirement. When asked,“Would you avor or oppose the ollowing proposal: Creating a program that would allow illegalimmigrants already living in the United States or a number o years to stay here and apply to legallyremain in this country permanently i they had a job and paid back taxes,” 80 percent were in avor(“CNN/Opinion Research Poll,” May 21–23, 2010).13 According to The Opportunity Agenda’s surveyo Arican Americans, Hispanics, and Progressive Whites, the requirement to pay taxes was the mostpopular element o comprehensive immigration reorm, ollowed by passing a criminal backgroundcheck and registering with the government (In Play: Arican American, Hispanic, and ProgressiveWhite Voters on Immigration Reorm, September 2010).

The DREAM Act (the Development, Relie and Education or Alien Minors Act ), an incrementalreorm originally introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2001 and reintroduced in the U.S. House in March2009, is supported by a majority o voters. I passed, undocumented students would be eligible toearn legal status i they came to America when they were very young, lived here or at least fve years,stayed out o trouble, earned a high school diploma or GED, and completed at least two years o college or military service. A survey conducted in June 2010 revealed that 70 percent o adults avoredthe DREAM Act , 51 percent strongly (“Public Support or the DREAM Act,” First Focus/OpinionResearch Corp., June 10–13, 2010). In a more recent Gallup poll, a majority o voters (54 percent)indicated they would vote or a law that would “Allow illegal immigrants brought to the United Statesas children to gain legal resident status i they join the military or go to college” (“Slim Majority o Americans Would Vote or DREAM Act Law,” Gallup Daily tracking survey, December 3–6, 2010).

During the past year, several organizations have commissioned research into the values underlyingthe public’s range o opinions on immigration policy and have tested various messages in support o comprehensive reorm. The Public Religion Research Institute explored the values Americans believe“are important as a moral guide to immigration reorm.” Respondents were asked to prioritize sevendierent values. In descending order o importance, they were: enorcing the rule o law/promotingnational security (88 percent); ensuring airness to taxpayers (84 percent); protecting the dignity o every person (82 percent); keeping amilies together (80 percent); ollowing the Golden Rule (71percent); recognizing America’s heritage as a nation o immigrants (54 percent); and welcoming thestranger (53 percent) (“Religion, Values, and Immigration Reorm: National Survey,” April 14, 2010).

The Opportunity Agenda tested a series o values and messages with Arican Americans, Hispanics,and Progressive Whites, including head-to-head testing o messages rom the pro- and anti-immigrationsides o the debate. For each audience, the progressive message—that legalizing undocumented

immigrants currently living in the United States would beneft everyone by increasing the number o people paying taxes and removing the underground economy—prevailed by 3 to 1. The researchersconcluded that the dominant values running through the persuadable block o voters centered on “lawand order” and “respect or American culture” and that these constituencies also reacted positively tomessages that ocused on basic rights, practical solutions, and attacks on big business (or liking “cheaplabor”). Finally, there was broad support across all groups or the core narrative ocused on “workable

13 According to the PRRI survey, 86 percent o the public avored requiring all illegal immigrants to register with thegovernment and meet certain requirements—working, paying taxes, and learning English—beore having the opportunity to apply orcitizenship; 60 percent strongly avor such a policy.




the Arizona law, and Democrats were evenly split: 45 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved(“Broad Approval or New Arizona Immigration Law,” Pew Research Center or the People & thePress, May 6–9 2010). The majority o Democrats approved o two o the law’s most contested

provisions—requiring people to produce documents veriying legal status (65 percent approved) andallowing police to detain anyone unable to veriy his or her legal status (55 percent approved) (“BroadApproval or New Arizona Immigration Law,” May 6–9, 2010).

At the same time, large majorities expressed disquiet over the passage o “stricter new immigrationlaws” in general. In the very same week in May that the Pew Research Center conducted its survey,another survey indicated that a majority o the public had real concerns about increased harassmento Hispanics (74 percent) and the deportation o amilies “who have lived in the United Statespeaceully and productively or many years” (77 percent). A majority (64 percent) was also concernedthat “taking strict measures against illegal immigrants would go against the American traditiono welcoming those who come to the U.S. to fnd a better lie” (“Americans Value Both Aspects o Immigration Reorm,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, May 1–2, 2010).

In its survey o Arican American, Hispanic, and Progressive White voters, The Opportunity Agendaasked several questions ocusing on due process rights. Majorities o each group agreed that lawsencouraging local police to arrest people who “look like immigrants” violate “our basic right toreedom rom discrimination” (Arican American, 53 percent, with 25 percent not sure; Hispanic,62 percent, with 13 percent not sure; and Progressive Whites, 56 percent with 18 percent not sure).Majorities also agreed that:

X Current laws that require the deportation o immigrants who have committed even a minorelony, with no judicial discretion permitted, violate the principle that “in America, punishmentshould ft the crime” (57 percent o Arican Americans; 63 percent o Hispanics; and 62 percento Progressive Whites).

X Indefnite detention o undocumented immigrants is a denial o due process and violates

“American values o airness and justice that our country was ounded upon” (55 percent o Arican Americans, 61 percent o Hispanics, and 67 percent o Progressive Whites).

X The current immigration system allows or the exploitation o workers and the denial o dueprocess in violation o “the idea that we all hold certain basic rights and that it’s wrong or anygroup to be exploited or mistreated” (69 percent o Arican Americans, 71 percent o Hispanics,and 72 percent o Progressive Whites) (In Play: Arican American, Hispanic, and ProgressiveWhite Voters on Immigration Reorm, September 2010).

Birthright citizenship

For the past several years, the Pew Research Center has been testing the public’s support or theFourteenth Amendment provision that makes citizens o all children born in the United States,

regardless o their parents’ immigration status. In June 2010 most Americans (56 percent) avoredpreserving birthright citizenship, a percentage virtually unchanged since the question was frst askedin 2006 (“Opinions About Immigration” in Growing Opposition to Increased Oshore Drilling , PewResearch Center, June 24, 2010). In a poll taken just ater Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced hisplan to introduce a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship, however, the public wasevenly split between those who supported the idea (47 percent) and those who opposed it (49 percent)(“CBS News Poll,” August 20–24, 2010). Support or leaving the Constitution as is was dramaticallyhigher among Latinos (79 percent; “NBC News Survey,” May 20–23, 2010).

When the question is posed outside the context o the Constitution, support or birthright citizenshipor all children in this country goes down. In a poll asking voters i a child born to an “illegal




39

immigrant” in the United States should automatically become a U.S. citizen, only 34 percent said yeswhile 58 percent said no (“Rasmussen Poll,” June 2010).




Strategic

Recommendations for

AdvocatesIn 2010 the immigrant rights movement and its allies seized the opportunity and controlled themessage in the mainstream media’s coverage o the immigration policy debate. The demand orcomprehensive immigration reorm, in which a path to legalization is frmly embedded, is now being

carried orth by that media with the result that public opinion is shiting in the movement’s direction.Nevertheless, there are a series o disconnects that emerge rom the media and opinion analyses:

X Media raming and commentary were overwhelmingly against the Arizona law, yet a majority o Americans support it.

X A majority o Americans support the Arizona law while also supporting comprehensiveimmigration reorm.

X Both public opinion and media coverage strongly avor comprehensive reorm, yet a bipartisanreorm bill ailed to even come up or a vote, and anti-reorm calls and letters to Congressdwared pro-reorm calls and letters. The same was true or the DREAM Act .

X Overall, pro-immigrant advocates have been winning the battle or the support o the Americanpeople overall, even as they have lost most ederal legislative battles.

Addressing these disconnects will be the challenge going orward; with this dynamic in mind, we makethe ollowing recommendations:

1. Maintain and build on past gains. Over the past fve years, the pro-immigrant movement andits allies have crated an eective core narrative, attained signifcant message discipline anddelivery, garnered a majority o mainstream media quotes, and edged out anti-immigrantvoices in the political blogosphere and online social networks. With considerable organizingand advocacy eorts, this has enabled them to gain and maintain majority support or mostpro-immigrant policies within the American electorate—across partisan, ideological, anddemographic groups—and to move mainstream media news coverage and commentaryoverwhelmingly in support o their major goals and principles. This is a signifcant achievement,especially in the context o an historic economic recession, and eort must be exerted to

maintain and build on those gains. In other words, the tactics and inrastructure developed todate remain necessary, though not sufcient, to achieve national-level legislative victories. Andthey will be crucial to the continuing state and local debates on immigrant issues around thecountry.

2. Mobilize the base or rapid response. While the pro-immigrant side has succeeded in persuadinga great majority o the electorate to its cause, opponents o reorm are signifcantly moresuccessul in mobilizing their members to contact lawmakers and to post caustic commentsonline in response to pro-immigrant news articles and blog posts. This rapid-response strategyskews lawmakers’ perceptions o their constituents’ views and creates the perception thatvoting or positive reorms is more costly than doing nothing or supporting negative policies.




41

Communications strategies can help close urgency and activism gaps that currently exist. Justas anti-immigrant groups do, pro-immigrant organizations should direct additional resourcestoward responding immediately online when issues arise, and when stories or commentary on

their topics appear. Coalitions like Reorm Immigration or America have already made someheadway in this eort, innovatively using text messaging technologies.

3. Engage progressive activists. The research shows that progressive whites and Arican Americansare persuadable on immigration, yet they are not part o a reliable base. That said, Arizona’s SB1070 did draw positive media attention to immigration issues and attracted progressive mediavoices such as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, joining those who support due processand opportunity or immigrants. This opening should be built upon, developing a groundswellby pitching stories and positions in progressive media vehicles and to progressive opinionleaders.

4. Expand the core narrative and messaging discipline into state and local debates. Advocates havesignifcantly progressed in articulating a shared narrative in avor o immigrant integration andhuman rights where none had existed. The narrative should be customized, vetted, and appliedto state and local debates around enorcement, due process, and integration policies. Theseevents should be seen as opportunities to deliver messages using the ramework o the corenarrative. Advocates should avoid the temptation to be purely reactive; instead, they should beproactive, using their media access to insist on “workable solutions that uphold our nation’svalues and move us orward together.”

5. Underscore core values, and redefne when necessary. The public’s reliance on the value o lawand order makes it difcult to shape opinion in opposition to harsh enorcement laws. Messagesneed to invoke values that protect due process, remind people about the positive contributionso immigrants, and work to allay or mitigate eelings o unease about shiting cultural andethnic demographics.

6. Rigorously ocus on solutions and position the government as capable o achieving these

solutions. The American public remains hungry or eective solutions, and the pro-immigrant movement has built a reputation or such solutions in the mainstream media.As the comprehensive immigration reorm debate wanes at the ederal level, advocates andspokespeople should articulate pragmatic solutions to state and local problems. At the sametime, it is important to position the government as capable o achieving these solutions.Research by the FrameWorks Institute and others suggests that the act that Americans believethe system is in a crisis does not necessarily drive them to solutions (“Framing ImmigrationReorm: A FrameWorks Message Memo,” FrameWorks Institute, June 2010). The emphasis onthe “broken system” can lead people to thinking that the problem just cannot be fxed, and canmake them hopeless and possibly push them toward harsh measures. Positive stories are the bestantidote to the scare tactics o the anti-immigrant movement. For example:

X Stories about immigrants lining up to take English classes ramed thematically.

X Stories about how immigrants have saved dying industrial cities and rural communities romeconomic ruin.

X Stories about the participation o non-citizen immigrants serving in the U.S. armed orces.

X Stories about civic organizations reaching out to immigrants in their communities to buildties, learn rom each other, and address mutual needs and interests.

When pitching stories o individual immigrants, advocates need to make sure that these storiesare ramed to ocus on the system and its ailures, as opposed to the individual. The systemicrame can motivate target audiences to see policy changes, rather than individual behavior, asthe solution to the immigration problem.




7. Expand the roster o pro-reorm messengers. Our scan shows that immigrant voices now occupysignifcant space in coverage o the immigration policy debate. Pro-immigrant religious andbusiness leaders are also garnering media attention, along with law enorcement spokespeople

who object to enorcing ederal immigration laws on public saety grounds. All these voicesshould continue to be aggressively pitched to the media. Other voices need to be amplifed,especially local civic leaders who have spearheaded integration programs or who have hadpositive experiences with immigrants. Their experiences underscore the idea that when thegovernment meets its obligations by taking positive action, everyone benefts. These integrationmessengers should be identifed and reporters should be steered in their direction. A proactivetactic such as the public release o a joint statement to Congress signed by a critical mass o local leaders should be considered.




43

APPENDIX IOrganizations quoted or cited in print media coverage

American Civil Liberties UnionAmericans or Immigration ReormAmerica’s VoiceArizona Latino Research EnterpriseAsian Pacifc American Legal CenterCenter or American ProgressCentro Presente (Massachusetts)Chicanos Por La CausaCoalition or Humane Immigrant Rights o Los Angeles

Council o Mexican Federations (L.A.)Dream is ComingFlorida Immigrant Advocacy CenterFlorida Immigrant CoalitionGeorgia Latino Alliance or Human RightsHarvard Act on a DreamHispanic FederationImmigrationWorksUSALos Angeles ArchdioceseMexican American Legal Deense and Educational FundMi Familia VotaNational Alliance o Latin American and Caribbean Communities

National Association or the Advancement o Colored PeopleNational Council o La RazaNational Day Laborer Organizing NetworkReorm Immigration or AmericaService Employees International UnionStudent Immigrant MovementTexas Civil Rights ProjectTrail o DreamsUnitarian SocietyUnite HereUnited FarmworkersUnited We Dream Network

William C. Velasquez InstituteWorkplace Project




APPENDIX IIPublic Opinion and Media Research Sources

“Americans Closely Divided Over Immigration Reorm Priority,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, June 11–13,2010.

“Americans Value Both Aspects o Immigration Reorm,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, May 1–2, 2010.

“Amid Immigration Debate, Americans’ Views Ease Slightly,” USA Today /Gallup Poll, July 8–11, 2010.

“Broad Approval or New Arizona Immigration Law,” Pew Research Center or the People & thePress, May 6–9, 2010.

“CBS News/ New York Times Poll,” April 28–May 2, 2010.“CBS News Poll,” May 20–24, 2010.

“CBS News Poll,” July 9¬–12, 2010.

“CBS News Poll,” August 20–24, 2010.

“CNN/Opinion Research Poll,” May 21–23, 2010.

“CNN/Opinion Research Poll,” July 16–21, 2010.

“CNN/Opinion Research Poll,” August 6–10, 2010.

“Election Eve/Night Omnibus,” Lake Research Partners, October 31–November 2, 2010.“Findings rom a Survey o 800 Registered Voters Nationwide, with an oversample o 300 LatinoRegistered Voters,” America’s Voice/Lake Research Partners/Public Opinion Strategies, May 13–19,2010.

“Framing Immigration Reorm: A FrameWorks Message Memo,” FrameWorks Institute, June 2010.

“Gallup Daily Tracking Survey”; multiple nationwide surveys, covering various topics and conductedthroughout 2010.

In Play: Arican American, Hispanic, and Progressive White Voters on Immigration Reorm, TheOpportunity Agenda/Gk Roper Public Aairs and Media, September 2010.

“Nationwide Poll: Majority Support or Immigration Reorm Holds Strong Amidst Weak Economy,”America’s Voice/Benenson Strategy Group, December 19–21, 2009).

“NBC News Survey,” by Hart/McIntur, May 20–23, 2010.

“Nearly Six in 10 Back Arizona Law But Also a Pathway to Citizenship,” ABC News/ Washington Post Poll: Immigration, June 3–6, 2010.

“News Coverage Index,” Pew Research Center, Project or Excellence in Journalism, various weeksthroughout 2010.




45

“Opinions About Immigration” in “Growing Opposition to Increased Oshore Drilling,” PewResearch Center or the People & the Press, June 24, 2010.

“June 2010 Political Survey,” Pew Research Center or the People & the Press, June 16–20, 2010.

“Poll: Americans Split over Birthright Citizenship,” CBS News, Political Hotsheet, August 26, 2010.

“Poll o Americans in Moderate-Conservative States,” America’s Voice/Hart Research Associates, April14–18, 2010.

“Public Support or the DREAM Act,” First Focus/Opinion Research Corporation, June 10–13, 2010.

“Raising Arizona: Speaking to Americans about Arizona and Immigration,” Westen Strategies orMedia Matters and America’s Voice, May 2010.

“Rasmussen Poll,” June 2010.

“Religion, Values, and Immigration Reorm: National Survey and State-Level Surveys o Ohio andArkansas,” Public Religion Research Institute, March 23, 2010; updated, April 14, 2010.

“Slim Majority o Americans Would Vote or DREAM Act Law,” Gallup Daily Tracking Survey,December 3–6, 2010.

“Speaking to Americans about Immigration and American Values,” Westen Strategies conducted orAmerica’s Voice and Media Matters, February 2010.




47

Part II:

Web 2.0 Discourse

Executive SummaryAs numerous immigration-related issues garnered major media attention in 2010, online communitiesbecame prevalent voices in the immigration debate. The transormation in the most popular

technologies and uses o the Internet that we have observed in the past ew years is reshaping thepublic discourse. The readership o some mainstream blogs rivals those o major newspapers.Facebook, at about 500 million users, increased its number o active users by 200 million in just ayear. It is currently the second most-visited website in the United States, ollowed by YouTube in ourthplace and Twitter in eighth.

The common element among these technologies is that they may be classifed as “Web 2.0,” alsoreerred to as the “social web,” “the movement away rom static webpages to dynamic and shareablecontent and social networking.”15 Simply put, these technologies rely on user-generated content. In avery real way, the success o Facebook depends on the musings o your high school riends and thephotos uploaded by your cousin.

For those who seek the integration o immigrants into our national community and comprehensiveimmigration policies, a robust and positive experience on the social web is crucial. Because Americanso all walks o lie increasingly use these sites to learn about issues and build relationships, theinormation they encounter will shape their views and inuence the broader public’s perceptions.As we saw during the rancorous 2007 debate over immigration reorm, as well as in other areas,online activism plays an important role in the legislative area. Advocates simply cannot aord to beunderrepresented in this growing public space. Because these technologies increasingly inuence publicopinion and activism, The Opportunity Agenda conducted its third annual scan to determine the stateo immigration advocacy on the social web in 2010, looking specifcally at the ollowing: Facebook, thelargest social networking site; blogs that requently cover politics and reach a mass audience; YouTube;and Twitter, whose popularity has continued to increase exponentially over the past year.

The goal o our Web 2.0 scans is to identiy the values, images, acts, and arguments that visitors to

these sites typically encounter. As these sites continue to become major destinations, people will turnto them or inormation and activism. We wanted to know what people see on these sites when theysearch or immigration-related topics.

Overview of major 2010 ndings

As numerous immigration-related issues garnered media attention, online communities became aprevalent voice in the immigration debate in 2010. Overall, most o the Web 2.0 discourse was related

15 Etymology o Web 2.0 at Wiktionary, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Web_2.0.




to one o the strictest immigration measures in recent history, Arizona’s Support Our Law Enorcement and Sae Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070), signed into law in April 2010. Compared to the past ewyears, 2010 oered some positive and some alerting developments. Our scan took place between June

14 and July 30, 2010.

Facebook

An immediately conspicuous dierence between this scan and the one in 2009 is the increasedparticipation that we observed on Facebook. For example, in 2009, the largest immigration-relatedgroup had 16,538 members. In 2010, the largest recorded group had 1,625,117 members and is called“1 MILLION Strong AGAINST the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070.” Most o the Facebook groupsand pages in the 2010 scan were related to Arizona’s SB 1070. The remaining groups and pages wereassociated with either the DREAM Act or immigration reorm in general. Finally, the current scanresonates strongly with the fndings o the 2009 analysis that those who are involved with immigrationissues on Facebook tend to hold pro-immigrant positions.

Blogs

Although 2009’s scan ound the blogosphere to be a very positive medium or immigration advocates,the 2010 scan o the top 10 American political blogs ound that while there are strong pro-immigrantvoices represented in the blogosphere, these voices are competing with equally strong blog writers andreaders posting anti-immigrant messages. With Arizona’s SB 1070 being such a pressing issue—bothpolitically and socially during the time o the scan—the blogosphere was abundant with immigration-related content.

YouTube

When we looked at YouTube in 2009, pro-immigration videos had fnally begun to outnumber theanti-immigrant ones. This trend continued through the summer o 2010. Videos presenting an anti-

immigration viewpoint are consistently outnumbered not only by pro-immigration videos, but byideologically neutral videos as well. This trend is present across all search terms used in this scan.

Twitter

In 2009, pro-immigration tweets dramatically outnumbered those rom the opposing point o view.As observed over the summer o 2010, this relationship changed. From the top 100 immigrationTwitterers, anti-immigration tweets outnumbered pro-immigration ones almost 2 to 1, while the twosides drew about equal when immigration-related tweets rom all users were searched or. At the sametime, another very important trend observed in 2010 was that discourse on Twitter involved neitherpro- nor anti-immigration tweets, but rather news tweets: the increasing use o Twitter as a platorm topost breaking news.

Immigration Web 2.0 in 2009

We ound an almost complete turnaround in 2009 rom the results o the Web 2.0 scan in 2007.We saw positive developments on Facebook and YouTube, and we discovered progressive-leaningmainstream blogs to be a riendlier environment or pro-immigration discourse than just two yearsago.

With the apparent decline o MySpace as an advocacy tool, the most relevant numbers pertained toFacebook, where we saw most groups increase their rolls during the course o the scan. Advocates orimmigration reorm had increased their presence on YouTube; thus most YouTube searches on the




49

topic yielded mostly pro-immigration videos. Finally, blogs continued to increase in popularity, andadvocates or practical immigration reorm have taken advantage o this new medium. Compared toour scan in 2007, the progress that pro-immigrant voices made in this space was striking. In Twitter,

we observed an interesting relationship between consistency o immigration tweets and intensity o political belies on immigration. Among those who consistently tweeted about immigration, pro-immigration voices outnumbered those against by more than 2 to 1. For inconsistent Twitter users, theresults were similarly lopsided but with a group o ambiguous or neutral tweets equal to the negativetweets.

Immigration Web 2.0 in 2007

We conducted a similar scan in 2007. That scan ound that, on social networking sites, anti-immigrantsupporters and rhetoric outnumbered pro-immigrant activity by a ratio o 2 to 1. Most keywordsearches (e.g., “immigration”) produced more results or anti-immigrant than pro-immigrant activismand yielded little in the way o Facebook or MySpace groups run by pro-immigrant advocacyorganizations. On YouTube, the most popular immigration-related videos were neutral, using humorto educate viewers about the issue. However, anti-immigrant videos maintained a signifcant lead overpro-immigrant videos, yielding both more search results and requently a much higher viewership.The previous scan also looked at the blogosphere and ound that mainstream progressive-leaningblogs were oten not supportive o immigration issues, causing schisms in the normally ideologicallyhomogenous communities. Finally, the scan described a nascent, but growing, immigrant blogosphere.




FacebookAs numerous immigration-related issues garnered major media attention in 2010, online communitiesbecame a prevalent voice in the immigration debate. Our latest scan illustrated that the socialnetworking site, Facebook, was a popular platorm or users to post and discuss immigration-relatedcontent. O the 156 Facebook groups and the 36 Facebook pages that were scanned, we ound that thevast majority held pro-immigrant positions.

Our scan resonates strongly with the 2009 fndings that those who are involved with immigrationissues on Facebook tend to hold pro-immigrant positions. We also ound that the greater majority o the Facebook groups and pages in this scan were related to Arizona’s SB 1070. The remaining groupsand pages were associated with either the DREAM Act or immigration reorm in general.

MethodologyTo examine the public discourse on immigration on Facebook, we searched or groups and pagesusing the ollowing terms: “amnesty,” “immigration,” “immigrant,” “immigration reorm,” “DREAMAct,” “Senate Bill 1070,” and “SB 1070.” The dierences between pages and groups are minor and notrelevant or this discussion. Both allow users to post links, photos, videos, and events, and to carry ondiscussions.

Our scan was limited to groups with at least 200 members and pages with at least 1,000 members.With these parameters, we identifed 156 groups and 36 pages related to immigration on Facebook.

Current playing eld

An immediately conspicuous dierence between the 2010 scan and the one in 2009 is the increasedparticipation that we observed on Facebook. In 2009, the largest immigration-related group and pagehad 16,538 and 16,628 members, respectively. These were both associated with the DREAM Act . Inthe 2010 scan, the largest recorded group had 1,625,117 members; it is called “1 MILLION StrongAGAINST the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070.” Notably, the page with the most members is called“1,000,000 Strong SUPPORTING Arizona Immigration Law SB1070” and has 98,312 ans.

While the largest and second-largest immigration-related pages on Facebook have anti-immigrationmessages, only eight o the 36 scanned pages hold such anti positions. The rest o the scannedFacebook pages are pro-immigration. O the eight anti-immigration pages, all are associated withsupporting SB 1070. The 29 other pages that are pro-immigration are divided as ollows: 17 are relatedto SB 1070, seven are related to immigration reorm, and our are related to the DREAM Act .

Similar to what we observed with Facebook pages, the Facebook groups scanned held predominantlypro-immigrant messages, with only 24 o the 156 groups taking an anti-immigrant stance. While notall o these anti-immigrant groups were related to SB 1070, as was the case with the pages we scanned,18 o the 24 groups were supportive o the bill. O the remaining anti-immigrant groups, fve werespecifcally opposed to immigration reorm, and only one was against the DREAM Act .

Although quantitative measures, such as membership rates, are an important actor in the success o dvocacy groups and pages on Facebook, an arguably stronger determinant o success and eectivenessis activity level. What sets the top groups and pages apart rom the rest is how oten people update thepage or group with comments, photos, events, discussions, news links, and videos. The Facebook group




51

with the highest membership, “1 MILLION Strong AGAINST the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070,”made good use o all o the options that Facebook oers, and user participation was high.

The “Wall” is where members can post comments, news links, and respond to other items alreadyposted on the Wall. In this particular group, members most requently used the Wall to quote articles,share news links and YouTube videos, and post inspirational quotes, such as “Nothing in the world ismore dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” —Martin Luther King, Jr. Therewas no notable distinction as to what sorts o Wall posts got the highest reactions; most posts wouldget at least a ew responses in the orm o a “Like” or a written reply. Anti-immigrant comments on theWall were rare, scarce, and uncommon. This group also utilized the “Photos” section, where pictures o protestors, rally signs, and political cartoons related to SB 1070 were posted.

It was exciting to see that members o this group participated in thoughtul discussions onimmigration-related topics under the Discussions section that all Facebook groups and pages have anoption to oer. Some examples o the topics ound on this group’s discussion board were “Propagandaand How to Counter,” “Illegal immigrants pay taxes,” and “Inormation or those against SB 1070:

empower yourselves.” Interestingly, while the Wall was or the most part void o anti-immigrantmessages, discussions on this Facebook group oten included discourse rom both sides. A discussionthread, “This law is not racist. Illegal is illegal,” received more than 1,500 responses. The majorityo the posts countered this anti-immigrant message, varying in length rom a ew sentences to a ewlengthy paragraphs. An example response was “america was made or the land o the ree! not toshackle us down and say only you are allowed. it is or everyone, and by the way the gov. is gettingmoney rom the illegals anyways with taxes the illegals dont get that, they pay sales tax just like legalpeople do.”16

One o the most useul tools that Facebook oers online advocates is the Events section, where groupsand pages can create events that all members will be invited to. The group “1 MILLION StrongAGAINST the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070” made good use o the Events page, updating it

with inormation on upcoming rallies and marches. Kyle de Beausett, ounder o the global justiceblog Citizen Orange, says that one detriment o social media sites is that they oten create an “illusiono helping to make change when in actuality nothing signifcant has been done.” However, usingFacebook’s Events tool is a practical way to organize members and turn online rallying into real-lieactivism.

One o the most popular anti-immigrant Facebook pages was 1,000,000 Strong SUPPORTINGArizona Immigration Law SB 1070 with over 98,000 members. This page allows its administrators topost only content while none o the updates on the wall are written by members. Members can reply,however, to whatever is already posted on the Wall. Like most groups and pages that we scanned, theWall o this page was composed o news links and miscellaneous comments about current events, suchas the midterm elections. In addition to taking advantage o the Photos section with lots o uploads,this page made good use o the Discussion board; or the most part, members wrote respectul,

though intellectually provocative, remarks. Under one discussion topic, “Can America Live WithoutImmigrants?,” many o the commentators made pro-immigrant arguments such as “Immigrants arealways seen with such negativity that people never realize how much they contribute to the U.S. I guesswe just appreciate things more once they are gone.”17

When we compared the Facebook groups and pages that had relatively low membership numbers tothe top groups and pages, the main dierence was the level o participation. While the top Facebook

16 http://www.acebook.com/topic.php?uid=113236852041063&topic=1083#!/topic.php?uid=113236852041063&topic=1083.17 http://www.acebook.com/topic.php?uid=116650658359171&topic=397#topic_top.




groups and pages updated their sites requently and saw a wide variety o member participation, thesmaller Facebook groups and pages were updated inrequently (many o them are now dormant);we oten noticed that most o the page activity was coming rom only one or two members. While

membership is not the only indicator o how eective a group or page is in terms o advocacy, highermembership certainly increases participation and creates a more diverse, interesting page that memberswill want to read, making the message more likely to get across.

Membership numbers are also important in the sense that i a page or group is updated requently,its members are more likely to be alerted about the updates on their own Facebook homepages. TheFacebook group “1 MILLION Strong AGAINST the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070” has morethan 1.5 million ans and is updated multiple times an hour by a diverse pool o members. Such a highlevel o participation indicates that the group’s members are efciently utilizing this Facebook toolto post content, such as links to news articles, and discuss immigration issues among each other. Theanti-immigrant Facebook page, “1,000,000 Strong SUPPORTING Arizona Immigration Law SB1070,”which allowed only page administrators to update the Wall, generally had no more than three Wallposts a day. However, members did take advantage o their ability to “Like” and comment on whatthe administrators posted each day. When an administrator posted a link to a pro-SB 1070 letterto the editor that was published in the Los Angeles Times, 570 members “Liked” the link, and 227commented, with responses such as “I couldn’t have said it better mysel!”18

While it is exciting to see so many pro-immigrant groups and pages on Facebook, the truth is thatonly a handul experience any sort o regular activity, and most are more or less dormant sites withintermittent user participation. It is likely that we observed such high numbers o immigration-relatedgroups and pages in 2010 because SB 1070 dominated immigration news during the time o this scan.Although it is striking to see how the Facebook community reacted to this bill, many o the groups andpages that were created in response to the bill are now inactive and have not continued to address theoverall topic o immigration.

ConclusionA well-maintained Facebook group or page can be a great tool or advocacy work. The topimmigration-related groups and pages on Facebook engage their members with interesting content,lively discussions, and events to get involved with. On the other hand, we observed that most o theimmigration-related groups and pages are inactive and are not serving the Facebook community aseectively as perhaps the larger, more active groups and pages involved in the immigration debate are.

Recommendations

X Facebook can serve successully as a launching pad or urther participation beyond theplatorm itsel. Encourage users to not just “like” but to call their Congressperson, or example.Ask or real-lie activism.

X Maintain a vibrant, interactive Facebook page; only a handul o pages and groups experienceany sort o regular activity. Advocates who are running groups or pages on Facebook must bemindul o maintaining a site that is updated requently with diverse content so members arenot only engaged, but are also reminded to participate on the site by seeing requent alerts ontheir own Facebook homepages.

18 http://www.acebook.com/pages/1000000-Strong-SUPPORTING-Arizona-Immigration-Law-SB1070/116650658359171?re =search#!/note.php?note_id=133076783396206&comments.




53

BlogsThe term “blogosphere” encompasses the online world o blogs, bloggers, and the overall bloggingcommunity. As blogs are ast gaining legitimacy in the media world, and people are increasinglyturning to blogs or their daily news, it is o great interest to see how this online community isdiscussing immigration-related issues.

Although 2009’s scan ound the blogosphere to be a very positive medium or immigration advocates,the 2010 scan o the top 10 American political blogs ound that while there are strong, pro-immigrantvoices represented in the blogosphere, these voices are competing with equally strong blog writers andreaders posting anti-immigrant messages. With Arizona’s SB 1070 being such a pressing issue, bothpolitically and socially during the time o the scan, the blogosphere was abundant with immigration-related content.

Methodology

To analyze immigration-related public discourse in the blogosphere, we frst looked at the top 100blogs as ranked by blog search engine Technorati. O this list, we selected the frst 10 o these blogsthat regularly cover political issues, and then used these or our six-week scan. The blogs that wescanned were Ben Smith’s blog on Politico, CNN.com’s Political Ticker, the National Review Online’sThe Corner, TheAtlantic.com’s The Daily Dish, ABCNews.com’s Political Punch, The Daily Beast ,Gawker, Hot Air, The Hufngton Post , and ThinkProgress.

While some o the scanned blogs were markedly either politically progressive or conservative, we oundthat many o the blogs posted immigration stories that were neutral. Nevertheless, personal positionson immigration were apparent in the comments sections.

Current playing eld

The 2010 scan o online public discourse on immigration encompassed many signifcant immigration-related issues that, as they arose, dominated the news. During the six-week scan, a ew majorimmigration-related incidents occurred, including: the U.S. Justice Department fled suit againstArizona over SB 1070; President Obama delivered a speech on immigration reorm; DREAM Act protestors organized publicized rallies across the country; and candidates running or ofce in themidterm elections were taking sides on the immigration debate as part o their campaigns.

Aside rom these more specifc occurrences during the time o our scan, Arizona’s SB 1070 was a hugeissue that had a ar-reaching impact all across America. Nearly all o the blog posts that we scannedhad at least one mention or reerence to SB 1070. Even i a blog post did not explicitly mention SB1070, a mention o it would always appear in the comments section. Because immigration was such ahuge point o political and social contention during our scan, we observed many more immigration-related blog posts last year in comparison to the 2009 scan.

In 2010, we ound that two o our scanned blogs signifcantly stood out or their consistency inregularly discussing immigration topics. The blogs with the most requent immigration-relatedposts were The Corner and those on The Hufngton Post . Over the period o our scan, we noted 68immigration-related posts on The Hufngton Post and 51 on The Corner. Interestingly, these are alsothe most politically pointed blogs o the 10 that we scanned. While many o the blogs in this latestscan posted content that we read as politically neutral (i.e., Political Ticker and Political Punch), both




The Hufngton Post and The Corner published blog posts that patently and assertively took opposingsides on the immigration debate, with The Hufngton Post producing pro-immigrant content and TheCorner producing anti-immigrant content.

Even though The Hufngton Post and The Corner stood out as the most consistent blogs to discussimmigration, there were a ew notable dierences between these two in terms o ormat and approachto the issues. To begin with, The Hufngton Post published work rom a very large pool o blogauthors—many o whom are proessionals in felds related to immigration—while most o the postswritten or The Corner came rom one author, Mark Krikorian, executive director o the Center orImmigration Studies. Also, The Hufngton Post wrote in a more structured style, evoking a newspaper,while The Corner was quite inormal.

The fnal major distinction that we observed between the two was that The Hufngton Post allowedreader comments, while The Corner did not. The Hufngton Post has a comments section wherelogged-in readers can respond to the story. On The Corner there are no such tools or readers to leaveeedback. In The Hufngton Post , we ound that anti-immigrant rhetoric dominated the readers’

eedback. The anti-immigrant comments requently used crude, oensive language, and when therewere positive comments, they were oten countered with anti-immigrant remarks. One article writtenby Rev. Jesse Jackson about President Obama’s immigration reorm speech received 554 comments,with many o these being back-and-orth responses among users.

When one person commented, “Illegal aliens are taking jobs Americans could use, obama wants to ruinour Country by allowing illegals to take over,” another reader retorted, “Hardly. Conservatives havetaken more jobs out o America than immigrants could ever take.”19 Most o the users who commentedappeared to participate in the conversations solely to voice their own strong positions rather thanengage in dialogue, which raises questions about the eectiveness o such debates. Kyle de Beausett,ounder o the global justice blog Citizen Orange, agrees that comments to blog posts may not beincredibly inuential, but it is still important or the pro-immigrant movement to be conscious o what

sort o tools and rhetoric anti-immigrant readers are using in their comments.Although the other blogs we scanned did not cover immigration issues as requently as The HufngtonPost or The Corner did, or the most part they all covered the major immigration news and eventsthat occurred during the time o our scan. For instance, all but two o the blogs (The Daily Dish andGawker) posted at least one story on July 1 about President Obama’s speech on immigration reorm.And ater the Department o Justice fled a lawsuit against Arizona over SB 1070 in early July, everysingle blog mentioned the suit in a post. In terms o the pro-immigrant messaging that was used,we saw that Political Ticker, Political Punch, and Ben Smith’s blog all posted very straightorward,relatively neutral messaging. On the other hand, The Daily Beast oten took an emotional approach.One such article, “Arizona’s Latest Immigration Mess,” was technically about a debate on what colora school should use to paint the children in a mural, but a blogger used this story to discuss SB 1070,describing the mural incident as “a contentious small-town debate on race and identity inamed by a

larger controversy sweeping Arizona in the wake o the passage o SB 1070, the harshest immigrationlaw in the nation.”20 Gawker, on the other hand, requently used humor or its pro-immigrantmessaging, posting headlines such as “No, Illegal Immigrants Do Not Kidnap and Behead Everyone inArizona,”21 and “Terrible Minimum Wage Jobs For Real Americans Only!”22

Our scan in 2009 highlighted Political Ticker as a ar-reaching blog that has the potential to attract a

19 http://www.hufngtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/obamas-speech-on-immigrat_b_632564.html.20 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-04/arizonas-mural-whitening-the-bid-to-recall-steve-blair/.21 http://gawker.com/5583581/no-illegal-immigrants-do-not-kidnap-and-behead-everyone-in-arizona.22 http://gawker.com/5573037/terrible-minimum-wage-jobs-or-real-americans-only.




55

wide political spectrum o readers. In 2010, we added Political Punch to our scan, which is also likelyto reach a wider political spectrum o readers than The Hufngton Post might. Overall, we ound thatboth o these blogs posted content that was relatively neutral on the immigration debate. However, we

did observe a dominance o anti-immigrant comments ollowing each blog post.

Conclusion

Blogs are gaining popularity as powerul media tools or people to gather their news. We ound inthis latest scan that both the pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant movements have a strong ootholdin the blogosphere; advocates rom both sides o the immigration debate are actively reading andcommenting on top political blogs.

Recommendations

X Attempt to reach out to “persuadables,” those whose minds are not yet made, instead o allocating resources arguing or trying to persuade the opposition: people whose minds you

cannot change.

X Focus on placing stories on well-read blogs because o their high readership.

X Use blog “diaries,” which are written by users, and then read and commented on by other users.

X Attempt to counteract the anti- narrative in the comments sections.

Citizen Orange’s Kyle de Beausett advises: “I oten speak o blogs as monsters that you have to keepeeding and never get ull, so they certainly take a lot o energy to maintain. Folks that are willing todo so should be supported, especially i they ocus on issues that others value. Does that mean youhave to start up your own organizational blog? Not necessarily, but you should be aware o and readblogs relevant to your organization and understand how they are run in the same way you understandthe dierent sections o a newspaper.”

On social media, pro-immigration activist Will Coley points out that “it’s a way to have a discussion,a uller debate than what corporate media allow us to do. I think we should really be thinking aboutwho’s there and who we’re going to connect with.”




YouTubeWhen we looked at YouTube in 2009, pro-immigration videos had fnally begun to outnumber thoserom the anti-immigrant ones. This trend continued through the summer o 2010. Videos presenting ananti-immigration viewpoint were consistently outnumbered not only by pro-immigration videos, but byideologically neutral videos as well. This trend was present across all search terms used in this scan.

Methodology

When searching YouTube, the deault option is to search by relevance. In keeping with our attemptsto mimic what most users would experience in their day-to-day searching, this remained ourprocedure or this scan. Each week, the frst page o search results was analyzed or our search terms:“immigration,” “Dream Act,”23 “comprehensive immigration reorm,” and “undocumented.”24 This

means that the trafc and comments or many o the videos were analyzed all six weeks because theycontinued to come up in our search, whereas some were analyzed only once.

There is one aspect o this methodology that must be singled out as potentially unreliable: theoccasional difculty o assigning a “pro,” “anti,” or “neutral” categorization to each video. While theviewpoint o most videos is immediately clear, we did encounter a ew problem cases. A classic exampleo this is one o the most consistently popular search results or “immigration”: “Bill O’Reilly ExplodesOver Illegal Immigration.”25 The video eatures an episode o The O’Reilly Factor in which the hostlaunches into a typical anti-immigration rant. However, the uploader o the video provided it with adescription mocking O’Reilly and tagged the video with terms such as “crackpot” and “insanity.” Wechose to categorize edge cases such as this one according to the uploader’s intent, and thus consideredthis video to be pro-immigration despite the anti-immigration bent o its raw content alone.

Current playing eld

As in 2009, pro-immigration videos continued to outnumber both anti-immigration videos and thosewith a neutral point o view in 2010. Approximately 43 percent o videos ound by searching or“immigration” could be classifed as pro-immigration, compared to 31 percent that were neutral orambiguous and 26 percent that were anti-immigration. For the other three search terms, the disparitywas even greater:

Table 4. ImmIgraTIon sTands expressed In youTube vIdeos

Search Term % Pro % Neutral % Anti

Immigration 43 31 26

Dream Act 100 0 0Comprehensive Immigration Reform 65 25 10

Undocumented 50 25 25


23 For “Dream Act,” only the frst hal o the frst page o search results was analyzed, as the view counts dropped o sharplyaterwards. Additionally, the results consisted almost entirely o promotional videos or the act, several o which were duplicate copieso the same video.24 For obvious reasons, videos unrelated to immigration—like a popular video depicting a Korg synthesizer’s “undocumented”eatures—were ignored.25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nt8MQaKko.




57

However, a closer look at the data reveals a slightly more mixed picture. For “immigration,” likely themost popular immigration-related search term, the top our search results were occupied by a rotatingselection o the same fve videos almost every single week.26 These fve videos had more views and

comments than the other results—and ideologically, they were split almost evenly: two pro, two anti,and one neutral. (It should be noted that one o these videos, “Immigration Gumballs,”27 was actuallyagainst all immigration into the United States, not just undocumented immigration; it did not ollowthe typical anti-immigrant narrative. Instead o accusing immigrants o taking jobs or breaking laws, itpresented immigration as a population-control problem.)

Perhaps the most interesting trend o the 2010 scan was the relative stability o the search resultsover time. In 2009, many videos would appear in the results one week and then be absent the next.This trend was almost completely absent in 2010, where nearly 40 percent o the videos ound underthe “immigration” search appeared in the frst page o results or all six weeks—and that statistic isheavily weighted down by the fnal, SB 1070 lawsuit-dominated week. More than two-thirds o the“immigration” videos appeared during the frst fve weeks o the scan, oten in more or less the sameorder—and the results or “immigration” were, on average, less stable than the results or the otherthree search terms.

The content o the videos across all viewpoints varied both in efcacy and in messaging strategy. Anti-immigrant videos ran the gamut rom animated, historical cartoons to news clips o traditional anti-immigration fgures, including pundits Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. Some oered a lucid, intellectuallyramed presentation o anti-immigration rhetoric, while others were nothing more than homemaderants. For example, “Cost o Illegal Immigration,”28 a Dobbs report that consistently appeared inthe top our, accused illegal immigrations o “undercutting wages and jobs . . . or Americans” and“crowding classrooms, hospitals, and prisons.” Meanwhile, in “Glenn Beck’s History o IllegalImmigration,”29 an animated version o Beck criticized previous attempts at immigration reorm—including Ronald Reagan’s 1986 plan—as “amnesty.”

Pro-immigration videos varied greatly. Some contained a values message, while others centered on thepractical considerations o proposed anti-immigration laws. Pro-immigration were more comedic, onaverage, than others; SuperNews’ “The Immigration Debate,”30 a top result or several weeks, parodiedthe current debate by casting the Mayower arrivals as undocumented immigrants; another video,“How to Solve Illegal Immigration,”31 eatured a serious, intellectual discussion o the issue—by twocartoon cats.

Perhaps due to the debate over Arizona’s SB 1070 in the summer o 2010, pro-immigration videostended more towards the reactive than the proactive, pushing back against proposed anti-immigrationpolicies as opposed to presenting solutions. (Search results or “Dream Act” and “comprehensiveimmigration reorm” did not ollow this pattern, but in those cases the phrasing o the search termitsel undoubtedly biased the results.) Interestingly, videos directly related to SB 1070 did not appearin the top results at all until two weeks ater the July 6th announcement o the ederal government’s

lawsuit against the bill. When they did appear, they were evenly split between being pro-SB 1070, anti-,and neutral.

The nature o the videos seemed to be changing rom previous years. Increasingly, people appeared

26 They were displaced only in the fnal week o the scan, when breaking news reports on the ederal government’s lawsuitagainst Arizona’s SB 1070 dominated the results.27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOQ.28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g.29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAaBgMmSrJo.30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdqWM.31 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN1kp1ggWyM.




to be turning to YouTube to fnd clips o TV news reports, especially around the time o a breakingnews story like the SB 1070 lawsuit. Many o the top search results—in some weeks, as many as hal—were clips rom TV news. A number o Al Jazeera reports also popped up, suggesting that viewers

were seeking news reports they may not normally be able to receive on their television. Anotherpopular trend was clips o celebrities commenting on the issue; over the course o this scan, videos o Shakira, M.I.A., and the Phoenix Suns, among others, made their way into the top results. Animatedvideos were also surprisingly popular; whether this is indicative o a larger trend or just coincidentalis difcult to tell. The top animated videos (“The Immigration Debate,” “How to Solve IllegalImmigration,” and “Glenn Beck’s History o Illegal Immigration”) were not connected in any obviousthematic way other than their basic topic and that they were all animated.

Although pro-immigration videos outnumbered anti-immigration videos in this scan, the reverse wastrue within the comments. Hateul, anti-immigrant rhetoric dominated the comments on videos o all viewpoints: the only videos without venomous comments were those that lacked comments atall. However, this might represents the overall tendency or conrontational comments on YouTubegenerally, not a prevalence o actual anti-immigrant eeling. YouTube is widely regarded as having—orunclear reasons—among the most antagonistic and distasteul comments. Will Coley, an immigrationreorm activist who specializes in new media, describes YouTube comments largely as “backgroundnoise.” A sample o some o the comments rom “The Immigration Debate” supports this: badvagirlsays “mexicans just drop their litters and let whites take care o them,” while “mastior” attributes theproblem o illegal immigration to the Illuminati.32

Conclusion

The YouTube playing feld is already tilted towards pro-immigration videos; prominently placing newvideos in the search results may present challenges, given the relative stability o most results pages.Because o this, advocates should consider using alternative orms o social media such as blogs andTwitter to promote their YouTube videos, instead o relying solely on the site’s search eature.

Recommendations

X Use humor, animation, and other nontraditional techniques to create your videos.

X Use other orms o social media to promote your YouTube videos.

X Consider turning o comments.

X Keep videos short and to the point.

X I a cause or issue gets positive news coverage, see i that coverage has been uploaded toYouTube and, i so, consider spreading it around. When considering uploading ootage yoursel,remember that it is a violation o copyright law, even though news networks have not appearedto object such uploading to date.

32 YouTube does not provide a way to link to a specifc comment, but these comments can be ound on this page: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=YhEl6HdqWM.




59

TwitterThe explosive growth and popularity o Twitter continued to increase exponentially over the past year.In 2009, Oprah Winrey devoted a segment o her show to explaining the tool, which was big news; in2010, The New York Times regularly mentioned Twitter without explanation.

Twitter’s simplicity oers both challenges—condensing your message into 140 characters or less—andopportunities. Because Twitter is so simple, almost anyone can use it; it’s much easier to write a tweetthan to create a video, or example. Furthermore, Twitter lends itsel especially well to access rommobile phones and other nontraditional computing devices.

Methodology

We used Twitter’s search eature, search.twitter.com, to conduct this scan, keeping track once a week o the top 100 results or “immigration.” Additionally, we ollowed a list o top 100 immigration-relatedTwitterers, keeping track weekly o a random selection o 100 tweets by those users. (Occasionally, atweet by a dierent user would make its way into this list because o “re-tweets”—a Twitter eaturethat allows users to directly repeat, with citation, another user’s tweet.) We took note o the requencywith which these users were tweeting about immigration, as well as the tweet’s stance on the issue:pro-, anti-, or neutral in the orm o news reportings.

Current playing eld

In 2009, pro-immigration tweets dramatically outnumbered those rom the opposing point o view.As observed over the summer o 2010, this relationship had changed. From the top 100 immigrationTwitterers, anti-immigration tweets outnumbered pro-immigration ones almost 2 to 1, while the two

sides drew about equal when immigration-related tweets rom all users were searched or. However,this may not be a cause or serious concern. Unlike with YouTube, where users doing a search is areal possibility, most Twitter users do not directly search the site, instead viewing tweets only rom alimited number o users whom they ollow. Thus, the overall balance o viewpoints on the site is not asimportant as with other orms o social media.

Indeed, a very important trend observed in 2010 was that discourse on Twitter involves neither pro-nor anti-immigration tweets, but rather news tweets: the increasing use o Twitter as a platorm to postbreaking news. From the top 100 immigration Twitterers, news and neutral tweets ran about even withanti- tweets, thus outnumbering pro- tweets; in the general “immigration” search, news and neutraltweets vastly outnumbered both pro- and anti- tweets combined .

In this scan, most neutral tweets came rom organizations—the law frm “SparBernstein” providinglegal tips to undocumented workers, or example, or the Twitter accounts o nonproft organizationsannouncing rallies or events. News also oten came rom organizations—mainly newspapers tweetinglinks to longer stories on their websites—but there were also a substantial number o individualstweeting about news, sometimes with an additional opinion such as “Yes!” or “Bad news . . .” but justas oten without. Frequently, individuals who tweeted news stories seemed simply to be saying, “Theseare the news topics I consider to be important.”

One surprising trend in this newest scan was the dramatic viewpoint disparity among the top 100immigration-related Twitterers, who were airly evenly split along ideological lines. But our researchindicated that many o the anti-immigration Twitterers among them tweeted ar more requently than




the pro-immigration voices. In act, one anti-immigration Twitterer alone, “Calrooer,” was responsibleor an average o over 5 percent o all tweets rom that top 100. The reasons or this disparity areunclear, although one possibility is the small segment o anti-immigration Twitterers—Calrooer

included—tend to tweet what amounts to a larger rant in 140 characters. Such rants lend themselvesespecially well to requent bursts o fve, 10, or even 20 tweets at a time. This is rarely seen on the pro-immigration side, where tweets usually come one at a time.

Conclusion

While Twitter remains a place or individuals to share thoughts and opinions, it is increasingly usedas a source o breaking news. Advocates should keep in mind that publishing tweets is only hal thechallenge; getting Twitter ollowers is equally important and requires targeted eort.

Recommendations

X Use Twitter to share links to other, longer content such as blog posts and YouTube videos.

X Consider using a link-shortening service such as bit.ly to condense long URLs.

X Consider having an ofcial Twitter account or your organization, in addition to havingindividuals tweet.

X Seek new ollowers, and ollow those who ollow you.




61

ConclusionAs numerous immigration-related issues garnered major media attention in 2010, online communitiesbecame a prevalent voice in the immigration debate. Compared to the past ew years, in 2010we observed some positive as well as some alarming developments. Participation in the discourseabout immigration on Facebook increased dramatically in 2010 and pro-immigrant related contentdominated. On YouTube, videos presenting an anti-immigration viewpoint were consistentlyoutnumbered not only by pro-immigration videos, but by ideologically neutral videos as well. Theexplosive growth and popularity o Twitter continued to rise. On immigration topics, Twitter is beingused increasingly as a platorm to post breaking news. In 2010, in the debate between pro- and anti-immigrant stands, anti-immigration tweets outnumbered pro-immigration ones almost 2 to 1 withinthe top 100 immigration Twitters. Overall, most o the Web 2.0 discourse was related to one o thestrictest immigration measures in recent memory, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which was signed into

law in April 2010.

For those who seek the integration o immigrants into our national community and comprehensiveimmigration policies, a robust and positive experience on the social web is crucial. As we saw duringthe rancorous 2007 debate over immigration reorm or in other areas, online activism is vital in thelegislative arena. Advocates simply cannot aord to be underrepresented in this growing public space.





568 Broadway

Suite 302

New York, NY 10012

Tel: 212.334.5977

public discourse on immigration in 2010

Documents