This Field Frame Analysis maps the competing narratives used by influential organizations to frame the debate on immigration and immigration reform. It finds that narratives that support restrictive immigration policies are more coherent and complete — and therefore more likely to “stick” in the public’s mind — than those that support comprehensive immigration reform. The report concludes with recommendations as to how organizations working towards comprehensive reform can communicate more effectively.
Countries
United States
Related content
Report
Getting to “We”: Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Immigration and Immigration Reform
This report lays the groundwork for a larger effort to reframe the public debate on immigration and immigration reform.
Article
The Future of Care
Four years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on care work and the many ways that care infrastructure—or the lack thereof—plays an important role in all of our lives. From greater...
Presentation
Shifting mindsets to address disadvantage Framing to drive change for children and young people
Understanding the mindsets that shape how people think, feel and act when it comes to complex social issues is a necessary component of efforts to use communications to create social change. This...