Changing Our Tone
Mainstream media coverage has created the sense that immigration is the “third rail” of politics, telling us that immigration is a polarizing issue for Americans, who are portrayed as overwhelmingly anti-immigrant.
.
However, polling conducted recently and during last year’s immigration debate indicates that the American people are compassionate for and accepting of immigrants. The truth is:
.
A majority (61%) is comfortable with the level of immigration or would like to see an increase. (Gallup, June 2007)
.
A majority (60%) believes immigration is “good thing” for the country. (Gallup, June 2007)
.
A growing majority (51%) expresses dissatisfaction with the US’s treatment of immigrant. (Gallup, August 2007)
.
While the attitude toward “undocumented” immigrants is less favorable, there is still a compassionate tone, and a majority still supports a path to citizenship. (Gallup, June 2007)
.
The message we send about immigration needs to convey optimism and highlight these truths: Americans are not frustrated by immigration, and neither are they anti-immigrant.
.
I invite you to help turn the tone of the immigration conversation in a positive and optimistic direction by combating the myths about immigration in every forum.
.
Stating the realities about immigration – supported by polling results – can change the perception that we are living in a country dominated by nativists, and, hopefully, encourage Members of Congress to act.
.
As always, our leaders can only follow where we lead. Let’s lead the change in the immigration conversation. Start by sending a Letter to the Editor of your local paper.
The trouble is as is often the trouble with so many political debates is that those that are angry shout down the rest of us. And so you have a group of people that hijack every comment thread on every newspaper and every blog any time any immigrant is even mentioned. They write seemingly endlessly to every columnist that mentions immigration. Yelling about undocumented immigrants as felons. It’s an absolute hijacking of the debate. Immigration of course is not the only thing where what amount to basically trolls have hijacked the debate, of course. If we spend all of our time trying to refute their lies and distortions (which are ever shifting), we lose the ability to make our case. And they know this. That’s part of the strategy: change the debate through ad hominem attacks.
Comment by Christopher — June 13, 2008 @ 9:57 am
As if to answer my own question, I just saw a post about Engaging Detractors. Good thoughts there, so I thought I should share.
Comment by Christopher — June 13, 2008 @ 11:09 am
I don’t want to poo poo your post. But lets not try to solve all the world’s problems. We have a Civil Right to have our partners live in this country with us. We should be held to the exact SAME standard as a straight couple. My Civil Rights have nothing to do with the other numerous problems of US Immigration policy. Lets try to keep our eye on the ball. I also would like to see marriage rights for all same sex couples but lets take this one step at a time. The current legislation in California will have a Major Impact on how the rest of the country will see the issue. We must do EVERYTHING we can to ensure this California legislation remains intact. I want people to write to the newspapers, Ellen, Oprah etc. Lets support California, Get the UAFA passed, Then we can work on other issues. 4uafa is a support forum for the UAFA.
Let’s get together and get this passed! SeaMex@4uafa.com
Comment by SeaMex — June 13, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Words do matter. It’s important that we not let xenophobes define terms and get the upper hand in determining what language we use. For example, think about how negative the term “illegal immigrant” is. Now think about the term “economic refugee.” They evoke very different images. For more on how to frame the debate, see http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/immigration/view. There are several other posts at the Rockridge Institute about immigration as well. They’re well worth reading.
Comment by Mary — June 14, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
…right let’s stay on target, one issue at a time.
(our issue is in “Dire Need” the other’s don’t
cause relationships to be torn apart and banished to other country’s around the world)……
Comment by derek — June 14, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
How can you say immigration is not our issue? The truth is we are part of the immigration debate and UAFA will only pass when politicians see that immigration is not a controversial issue Changing the tone of the immigration debate matters and if we can’t see why then we will be defeated.
UAFA is an immigration AND an lgbt bill.
I don’t think anyone in Congress see our partners in a special category. We need to put our ego aside and embrace every ally and be an ally in return.
Comment by The Facts — June 16, 2008 @ 10:56 am
This may apply so some of us. It’s a SCOTUS decision on overstayers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_immigration
Comment by nola — June 16, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Well, since many undocumented immigrants have left their families behind in central America and Asia because they can’t risk (or even try) to bring them, I would say that yes it does rip families apart. Many of us also have partners who stories mirror those of undocumented immigrants or are undocumented immigrants ourselves, so our stories DO include that story. To see immigration as distinct groups with different goals and no overlap is not productive either. We are not all flying back and forth (and couldn’t afford to if we wanted to) to partners living overseas. Same-sex binational couples are not all wealthy, overly educated and older. Remember the diversity of the stories within our own community, please.
Comment by Christopher — June 17, 2008 @ 6:15 am
Why does this blog get updated so infrequently? We used to have weekly action alerts, weekly (or at least frequent) discussion topics, ocassional debates, and news. When someone asked a question, Adam would respond right away with interesting insights. What happened IE?
Comment by joel — June 20, 2008 @ 10:03 am