Going national: how the fight for immigrant rights became a national social movement

Abstract

The immigrant rights movement in the United States evolved from largely localised and grassroots struggles in the 1990s into a coherent and coordinated national social movement in the late 2000s and 2010s. Scaling up in this way is challenging because grassroots organisations tend to lack the resources needed to operate at the national level over an extended period. This paper examines how this movement overcame the obstacle by focusing on role of national organisations in concentrating key resources (money, political capital, discursive power) and developing a national social movement infrastructure. The consequences of this process are shown to be paradoxical: While it enabled potent advocacy in the national political arena, the concentration of resources generated constraints on strategies and tactics, inequalities, and conflicts between different factions of the movement. This article describes the process by drawing on interviews with key stakeholders, tax files, newspapers, foundation documents, and White House visitor records.

Dynamics of Distinction and Solidarity within Social Movements: Explaining Relations between Privileged and Underprivileged Groups in the U.S. Immigrant Rights Movement

“…Though activists continued to engage congressional allies during this process, the primary target was the White House. Though Dreamers were certainly working to gain access to both branches of government we use White House visits as an indicator because such data are well-documented and more easily accessible than visits to congressional representatives and their staff are not (Nicholls et al 2020). 3 In sum, three different sources are used as indictors of the kinds of profits derived from distinction.…”

Movement or moment? Lessons from the pro-immigrant movement in the United States and contemporary challenges

“…Dreamers' efforts have borne fruit. Most significantly, their advocacy likely pushed President Barack Obama to take administrative action and create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 (Nicholls, Uitermark, and van Haperen, 2020). DACA offered protection from deportation and temporary employment authorisation for two years to those who had come to the United States before the age of 16 and who met a number of other criteria.…”

“…Yet the variegated political opportunities and constraints they capture suggest obstacles ahead for the pro-immigrant movement. Building on Nicholls, Uitermark, and van Haperen (2020), it is clear that niche openings and differing political opportunities at the local and federal levels legitimates some activists and claimants over others.…”

“…Those young people are apt to feel American due to their schooling, facility in English and limited knowledge of another country. In comparison, there are millions of migrants in precarious status in other countriesdue to clandestine entry, over-stay of visas or failed asylum bids but these populations tend to be less settled than in the United States and include a lower proportion of 'Dreamer'-like young people who have brought such energy and engagement to the U.S. movement (Nicholls, Uitermark, and van Haperen, 2020;Terriquez and Lin, 2020). Looking forward, we may see an increase in Dreamer populations in Europe, especially since no European country provides automatic birthright citizenship for children, irrespective of parents' legal status, a provision that does end inter-generational illegality in the United States.…”

“…Similarly, there are fewer equivalents to the breadth and depth of the private philanthropic sector in the United States. Because some proportion of the immigrant community tends to be resource-poora significant barrier to sustained mobilisationthe U.S. movement has benefited from external financial and human support from foundations or private individuals (Nicholls, Uitermark, and van Haperen, 2020). In many other countries, non-profit organisations are more dependent on public funding or they cannot tap deep pockets of private wealth.…”