We examine mainstream U.S. print news depictions of the 2006 immigration policy debate. Using critical discourse analysis informed by cognitive metaphor theory, we analyze a substantial sample of mainstream U.S. print news reports in May 2006, at the height of national attention on the “Great May Day” demonstrations across the country. We compare it to a second sample of print news media articles from October 2006, at the time of the passage of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. Mainstream print media represented immigrants with a noteworthy balance between human and nonhuman language during the time of the Great May Day marches. However, the media did not sustain a balanced representation of immigrants in the ensuing months. The conceptual metaphor immigrant as criminal is predominant during both periods. We explore the implication of the language used to frame the immigration policy debate.

In this essay, I contend that one can understand neither the development of mass action among contemporary immigrants, nor the sporadic nature of that action, without attending to the historic role of parties and community-based organizations in shaping immigrants' political mobilization. I draw connections between the mass immigrant-rights demonstrations that took place during the spring of 2006 and what we know about how immigrants' political participation in the United States is structured by (1) the declining influence of political parties, and (2) the critical function of community-based organizations. These organizations were the focus of my recent book, Democracy's Promise: Immigrants and American Civic Institutions (2006). Why haven't activists been able to sustain the momentum that brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters out into the streets during the spring of 2006? Although they, along with the Spanish-language media, played a critical role in organizing mass demonstrations against punitive immigration legislation in early 2006, labor organizations, workers' centers, advocacy and social service organizations, ethnic voluntary associations, and religious institutions face severe constraints in terms of engaging in sustained, consistent political mobilization and, therefore, mainly achieve limited mobilization. However, voter registration data from the National Association of Latino Elected Officials suggest that the demonstrations may have spurred interest in more traditional types of political participation among immigrants and their supporters. Thus, while it is true that, for the most part, political participation does not take place overnight, there may be ways for U.S. civic institutions to speed up that process through direct mobilization and the provision of information that helps immigrants to feel more comfortable and confident taking part in the political system. Trusted community-based institutions represent a vital potential force in promoting political inclusion for immigrant newcomers who contribute to so many other aspects of American life.

As Latino and Asian immigrant populations in the United States continue to grow, controversies are cropping up over immigrant animal practices such as horse tripping in Mexican charreadas (rodeos) and the slaughter of animals in the live-animal markets of San Francisco's Chinatown. Immigrant advocates read these controversies through a multiculturalist interpretive framework that constructs animal advocates as agents of an ethnocentric and racist majority. In this article, I argue that this multiculturalist interpretation tends to “go imperial” by mischaracterizing the position(s) of animal advocates and invalidating and suppressing the other, potentially competitive, moral discourse at play: the discourse about cruelty toward animals. I explicate this suppressed discourse and then propose the development of a mutually challenging and potentially edifying moral dialogue in which majority and minority animal practices are simultaneously open to scrutiny and criticism. Clashes over customary practices can aggravate intergroup tensions, but they also have the potential to lead to meaningful moral dialogue between the majority and immigrant minorities.

This essay explores the contradictions posed by states' efforts to exclude immigrants from south of the U.S. border on the grounds that they “burden” the economy, despite the same states' windfall revenue from the taxation of undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers' ongoing anti-immigrant sentiment yields a racialized contradiction in which mostly Mexican and Central American immigrants are derogated as economic burdens. In fact, they are unfairly taxed in addition to being indispensable to the U.S. economy. Based on these and other phenomena, such as racially coded preferences for higher-class immigrants and “antidiversity visas,” I contend that contemporary U.S. immigration policy has regressed toward more blatant class and “race” (albeit racially coded) discrimination.

This essay attempts to broaden the context of public and policy discourses about the nature and complexities associated with migration to the United States. Several dimensions are examined: (1) global and U.S. migration trends; (2) the effects of migration on both the communities of origin and destination; (3) issues related to the rights and standing of migrants; (4) the gendered dimensions related to migration; (5) patterns of migrants' integration into their host society; (6) the impact of human-capital investment and its consequences; and (7) the limitations of the current policy discussions and initiatives. In the case of the latter, the need to move away from polarizing and simplistic perspectives and to integrate the many socioeconomic and political complexities associated with international migration is discussed. A more comprehensive understanding of migration recognizes that it is not exclusively the result of individual behaviors and motivations. Structural relationships, both domestically and internationally, as well as public policies have also had an effect on migration flows and patterns.

In the first decade of the new millennium, a new cycle of public concern about the benefits and harms of immigration has erupted. The harsh spotlight on undocumented immigration and border controls has blinded us to many important facets of the problem. In this article, we focus on the experience and integration of the children of immigrants. These youth are the largest growing segment of the U.S. child population—now constituting 20% of our nation's children and projected by the year 2040 to make up one-third of our children. Immigrant-origin youth are extraordinarily diverse, and their experiences resist facile generalizations. The social and educational outcomes of immigrant youth will thus vary substantially depending upon the specific constellation of resources and the settlement context. Of critical importance is how immigrant youth fare academically, as this has long-term implications for their future, as well as our society's well-being. While some are successfully navigating the U.S. educational system, large numbers struggle academically, leaving school without having acquired the tools that will enable them to function in the highly competitive labor market and ever more complex society. Here we explore a variety of factors that shed light on the educational integration of the children of immigrants: educational background; poverty; segregation; undocumented status; English-language acquisition; promoting academic engagement; family relations; peer relationships; communities and community organizations; and mentoring relationships. We advocate a major new policy agenda to ease the transition of America's newest and littlest arrivals to their new home.