UC Berkeley

Thousands of noncitizens are incarcerated in immigration detention centers daily despite extensive research demonstrating a multitude of adverse outcomes associated with the practice. However, many effective alternatives remain available that employ varying levels of restriction and surveillance without resorting to the prison-like conditions of immigration detention. The community-based case management model is most promising, which strives to maximize noncitizens’ liberty and human dignity while achieving optimum rates of compliance with immigration legal proceedings. Numerous scholars, activists and social movement organizations have increasingly implored lawmakers to adopt case management alternatives, yet mass detention continues to expand. Incentivizing change has been hampered by an absence of public opinion data among constituents, allowing elected officials a degree of plausible deniability. Progress is further impeded due to the inherent disenfranchisement of the affected population. Given these structural, political, and cultural challenges, how then might the voting public be mobilized to act on behalf of noncitizens impacted by mass detention? Grounded in principles of interest convergence and collective action framing theories, the current study builds upon promising political science messaging research to learn whether race-class narrative framing can influence attitudes about immigration, detention, and supporting community-based alternatives. To meet these aims, this dissertation study employs an online, between-groups survey experiment with a representative sample of the American electorate. Findings suggest that the race-class narrative may be ineffective with matters concerning undocumented immigration but shows promise when addressing legal immigration issues. Implications for future research and the ‘undocumented penalty’ are discussed.