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
3 Things to Know about Labor this Labor Day
As we mark a national holiday to celebrate workers, we’re asking: how are Americans thinking about work? Through our WorkShift project, we’ve been conducting in-depth interviews and large,...
Presentation
Framing Matters: Practices for shifting narratives and strategically communicating to advance upward mobility
This workshop, we will explore the power of narratives in shaping and shifting perceptions of upward mobility to drive social impact. We will delve into effective communication strategies for...