Received: 19 February 2018 Accepted: 6 May 2018

DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12599

ARTICLE

Immigrant rights and social movements

Maria De Jesus Mora | Rodolfo Rodriguez | Alejandro Zermeño |

Paul Almeida

University of California, Merced

Abstract
Correspondence
Paul Almeida, University of California, Merced, The disciplinary fields of immigration and social movements
5200 N. Lake Rd, Merced, CA 95340.
have largely developed as two distinct subareas of sociol-
Email: [email protected]
ogy. Scholars contend that immigrant rights, compared to
other movements, have been given less attention in social
movement research. Studies of immigrant‐based move-
ments in recent decades have reached a stage whereby
we can now assess how immigrant movement scholarship
informs the general social movement literature in several
areas. In this article, we show the contributions of empirical
studies of immigrant movements in four primary arenas of
social movement scholarship: (a) emergence; (b) participa-
tion; (c) framing; and (d) outcomes. Contemporary immi-
grant struggles offer social movement scholarship
opportunities to incorporate these campaigns and enhance
current theories and concepts as earlier protest waves
advanced studies of collective action.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

The “immigrant spring” of 2006 dramatically placed social movements by excluded social groups on the national
stage. The protest campaign against House Bill 4437 resisted the increasing criminalization of U.S. immigrants with
mass marches, resulting in some of the largest demonstrations in U.S. history (Robinson, 2006; Zepeda‐Millán,
2017). In addition, the 2006 movement reached many smaller cities and towns with scant history of collective
action (Wallace, Zepeda‐Millán, & Jones‐Correa, 2014).1 Such historic mobilizations and current immigrant
struggles offer social movement scholarship opportunities to incorporate these newer campaigns and enhance
current theories and concepts, as earlier protest waves advanced studies of collective action (McAdam, 1999;
Morris, 1984).
Beyond the mobilizations of 2006, immigrant communities have organized at the local and national levels over a
variety of issues, including political incorporation and a legal pathway to citizenship (Milkman & Terriquez, 2012).
Although many working‐class immigrants face precarious employment and legal status (Gleeson, 2015; Kubrin, Zatz,
& Martinez, 2012; Menjívar, 2006), they continue to mobilize for access to basic services and against the threats of

Sociology Compass. 2018;e12599. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 20
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12599
2 of 20 MORA ET AL.

detention, deportation, and family separation (Abrego, 2014). Other immigrant struggles seek to protect existing
rights or expand them into new arenas. Since the 1965 Hart‐Cellar Act (and the 1986 IRCA2), the United States expe-
rienced a rise in international migration from the global South, especially from Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean, but also Southeast Asia, India, and China (Brettell & Hollifield, 2014; Paret & Aguilera, 2016; Pew
Research Center, 2015). These policies of the second half of the 20th century (especially the 1965 Hart‐Cellar
Act) marked a shift from the exclusion acts and restrictive laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that explicitly
used race and national origin to limit non‐European immigration (Waters & Ueda, 2007). Nonetheless, by the early
1990s, the trend reversed itself with a new series of anti‐immigration laws targeting immigrants from Latin America,
the Caribbean, and Africa (Sampaio, 2015; Zatz & Smith, 2012).3 The reverse tendency has become especially acute
with the rise of Trumpism. Besides changes in U.S. immigration laws, other conditions encourage heightened levels of
international migration. These forces include political and social violence, global market liberalization, and demand in
the global North for low‐cost labor power and to offset an aging population and declining fertility rates (Abrego,
2017; Barajas, 2009; Calavita, 1989; Kivisto & Faist, 2010; Massey & Capoferro, 2006; Massey, Durand, & Pren,
2014; Massey & Sana, 2003; Robinson, 2006). Indeed, over the past three decades, violent conflict, market liberali-
zation, and environmental crises have displaced populations throughout the developing world leading to family sur-
vival strategies via migration to wealthier countries (Sassen, 2014). In the United States, the increase in international
migration, especially undocumented migration, has resulted in a rise in immigrant‐based social movements.
Immigration and social movements have largely developed as two distinct subareas of sociology (Weffer, 2013).
The American Sociological Association (ASA) maintains separate sections for International Migration and Collective
Behavior and Social Movements (CBSM). Bloemraad, Silva, and Voss (2016) contend that immigrant rights, com-
pared to other movements, have been given less attention in social movement research. Others encourage social
movement and immigration scholars to engage in more conversations and collaborations (Menjívar, 2010). Perhaps,
the most focused attention to immigrant collective action comes from the Labor and Labor Movements section of
the ASA with an emphasis on immigrant worker struggles. Studies of immigrant‐based movements in recent
decades have reached a stage whereby we can now assess how immigrant movement studies inform the general
social movement literature. In this article, we show the contributions of empirical studies of immigrant movements
in four primary arenas of social movement scholarship: (a) emergence; (b) participation; (c) framing; and (d)
outcomes.
Social movement emergence involves the conditions driving the initiation and diffusion of social movement mobi-
lization (Andrews & Biggs, 2006; Piven & Cloward, 1977). Scholars examine the likelihood of mobilization over time
or across geographical space and political units (Tarrow, 2011). Existing studies of immigrant rights movements offer
new insights into the types of opportunities, threats, and resource infrastructures facilitating the emergence of col-
lective action by immigrants and their allies. We also examine individual participation in immigrant movements. This
area of collective action asks why some participate in protest campaigns while others stay at home as well as why
some people participate more than others. We incorporate existing studies on the correlates of movement participa-
tion in general to immigrant‐based collective action. In particular, we review the micro‐mobilization contexts of social
networks, social media, organizational affiliations, and identities of participants and non‐participants (Inclán &
Almeida, 2017). In the ideational sphere of social movements, we examine how immigrants convey their messages
to multiple audiences via a series of collective action frames (Snow, Benford, McCammon, Hewitt, & Fitzgerald,
2014). Recent literature on immigrant social movements also addresses movement outcomes. The subfield of move-
ment outcomes centers on how collective action explicitly creates social change, including at the micro‐level of the
life course of participants (McAdam, 1988), the meso level of organizational survival, and the macro‐level of policy
change or prevention (Amenta, Caren, Chiarello, & Su, 2010; Burstein, Einwohner, & Hollander, 1995). We cover mul-
tiple outcomes and incorporate the crucial dimensions of favorable local political contexts and mobilization levels as
shaping the consequences of immigrant movement struggles. Our review concludes with a brief discussion on how
future immigrant mobilization studies could benefit social movement scholarship in terms of emergence, participa-
tion, framing, and outcomes.
MORA ET AL. 3 of 20

2 | EMERGENCE

Movement emergence, arguably, is the focus of scholarship with the greatest number of studies and theoretical
development. We focus here on three dimensions driving the initiation of collective action: opportunities, threats,
and resource infrastructures (Almeida, 2018). We explore how immigrant mobilization studies offer new insights into
how these dimensions affect the probability for launching social movement campaigns by excluded and marginalized
populations.

2.1 | Opportunities
Scholars view political opportunities as pivotal conditions driving social movement action (McAdam, 1996). They are
positive features in the political environment that provide incentives to mobilize. Institutional access, decreases in
state repression, conflicts between elites, elite allies, and shifting alignments are seen as the most common opportu-
nities for mobilization (Tarrow, 2011). Several studies analyze the kinds of political opportunities available for immi-
grant social movements while acknowledging the tremendous obstacles marginalized groups face. Pallares and
Flores‐González (2010) examine how Chicago has historically accepted immigrants in a relatively more welcoming
fashion than many other cities. This fairly hospitable environment provides incentives for collective action among
immigrants. This may also explain why activists first mobilized in Chicago in the spring of 2006, before the movement
spread to other cities (Robinson, 2006). Chicago is also a sanctuary city, and such localities offer a somewhat more
cordial setting for immigrants and their allies to struggle because of local policy protections. For example, through
a local resolution or ordinance, sanctuary cities may allow undocumented immigrants to work and not permit local
law enforcement to inquire about immigration status. Sanctuary cities also motivate immigrants to mobilize against
anti‐immigrant legislation because there is relatively less likelihood for state repression (with a lower chance of being
arrested or harassed by police compared to regions without these policies). However, more scholarly work needs to
systematically examine if local governments that have sanctuary city policies or ordinances in place offer greater pro-
tections to their immigrant communities in times of increasing repression (Steil & Vasi, 2014).
Okamoto and Ebert (2010) analyzed protest events in 52 metropolitan areas across the United States. They also
find that political opportunities at the local level, in terms of percent voting Democrat and number of immigrant orga-
nizations in a city, increase the probability of immigrant mobilization. Burciaga and Martinez (2017) also demonstrate
the positive role local political context plays in mobilizing undocumented youth, in particular when deciding the strat-
egies and tactics of their mobilizing efforts. Another key political opportunity for immigrant rights mobilization is elite
allies (Tarrow, 2011). Strunk and Leitner (2013) studied mobilization against the “Secure Communities” program4 in
the Washington DC area and found that local political elites facilitated mobilization efforts. Using participant obser-
vation and interviews between 2010 and 2011, they showed that immigrant advocates were able to challenge secure
communities because of long‐standing relationships with local elected officials. Reese and Ramirez (2002) also dem-
onstrate the role of key institutional allies in local and state government in California, especially Latinx legislators, in
aiding in the restoration of welfare benefits to documented noncitizen immigrants.

2.2 | Threats
Another component of political process theory centers on the negative conditions driving collective mobilization, or
threats (Goldstone & Tilly, 2001). The logic of threat‐induced mobilization focuses on negative incentives in the sur-
rounding environment (Almeida, 2018). If communities fail to act collectively, they will be worse off. A series of stud-
ies now demonstrate that policy threats reducing legal protections may induce mobilization by immigrant
communities (Bloemraad, Voss, & Lee, 2011; Okamoto & Ebert, 2010; Ramakrishnan, 2005; Zepeda‐Millán, 2017).
There is a long history of racialized and restrictive immigration policy in the United States (Calavita, 2007; Ngai,
2004), and immigrant social movements have emerged during times of legislative debates and implementation of
4 of 20 MORA ET AL.

anti‐immigrant policy threats. These legal and policy threats, which range from excluding immigrants from basic social
services to criminalizing them for their undocumented or semi‐documented status, have generated mass demonstra-
tions, by both immigrants and their supporters. For example, policies such as Proposition 187 in California in 1994
sought to exclude immigrants from the social citizenship benefits of public education, social services, and non‐emer-
gency health care (Reese & Ramirez, 2002). The threat of Prop 187 initiated the largest immigrant rights mobilization
in California in the 1990s and stimulated state‐wide protest actions (Armbruster, Geron, & Bonacich, 1995). In
another policy threat example, in Arizona in 2010, State Bill 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbor-
hoods Act) also catalyzed widespread pro‐immigrant mobilization (Santos, Menjívar, & Godfrey, 2013). The Arizona
legislation permitted law enforcement officials to demand proof of citizenship during routine activities (e.g., traffic
stops and community patrols). The act institutionalized racial profiling of Latina/os, in particular Mexican and Central
American immigrants in Arizona, because “Mexican‐looking” was equated with undocumented status (Aguirre, 2012).
Scholars have also examined the role of policy threats in the 2006 immigrant rights mobilizations (Bloemraad et al.,
2011; Zepeda‐Millán, 2014a, 2014b). The 2006 HR 4437 bill was a widespread threat to immigrant communities
across the nation, changing the penalty for being undocumented from a civil violation to a federal felony. The
Sensenbrenner Bill quickly broadened as a threat to Latinos in general, regardless of citizenship status, because of
the racialization of immigrants (Bloemraad et al., 2011; Ponce, 2014; Zepeda‐Millán, 2017). Hence, some of the
largest immigrant mobilizations in U.S. history were first initiated by the policy threat of anti‐immigration legislation,
following several years of increasing criminalization and racialization of immigration (Zatz & Smith, 2012). Despite
policy threats acting as a major force for immigrant movement emergence, in most times and places, mobilization will
only occur in communities where a pro‐immigrant organizational infrastructure is already in existence (Mora, 2016).
Repressive threats may have the opposite impact than policy threats in relation to immigrant rights movements.
Repressive threats bring immediate harm to communities through the use of police raids, incarceration, and deporta-
tions. While such repressive strategies may create backlash protest for politically incorporated groups with citizen-
ship rights, for immigrant communities, these actions instill fear and more likely lead to de‐mobilization (Sampaio,
2015). Stringent immigrant enforcement tactics may violate human rights and create generalized distress and anxiety
in communities (Golash‐Boza, 2012). Scholars have demonstrated an increase in immigration law enforcement raids,
detentions, and deportations since 2006 (Menjívar, Gómez Cervantes, & Alvord, 2018; Sampaio, 2015; Walters &
Cornelisse, 2010). Indeed, deportations continued with a steady increase between 1998 and 2012 (Golash‐Boza,
2015). Extant social movement studies tend to emphasize cases in the global South when analyzing protest‐
repression dynamics (see Davenport, 2009; Prieto, 2016; Taylor, 2016; Prieto, 2018 for exceptions). More schol-
arly attention should be given to increased state repression against immigrant communities in the United States
and other sites in the global North and its relationship to movement activity (Robinson & Santos, 2014). One
promising line of work is found in Heredia (2016), where she shows repressive actions by ICE and deportation
centers countered by undocumented youth using a variety of innovative tactics to infiltrate these same spaces
and bringing greater public attention to contradictory and punitive immigration practices.

2.3 | Resource infrastructures

Another set of facilitating conditions for social movements emergence involves the resource infrastructure available
to immigrant rights activists and their allies. Resource infrastructures range from pre‐existing organizations and insti-
tutions to social networks, social media, human capital, and previous mobilization experience (Edwards & McCarthy,
2004; McAdam, 2003; Morris, 1984; Rodriguez, 2017). For immigrant rights social movements, various civic organi-
zations such as Hometown Associations (HTAs) and immigrant service organizations have played an important role in
mobilizing immigrant communities (Fox & Bada, 2011; Ramakrishnan & Bloemraad, 2008; Ramakrishnan &
Viramontes, 2010; Vonderlack‐Navarro & Sites, 2015; Zabin & Escala, 2002). For instance, Wah and Pierre‐Louis
(2004) contend that by the late 1990s, Hometown Associations outnumbered any other type of organization within
the Haitian immigrant community. It is interesting to note that immigrant groups set up HTAs to provide
MORA ET AL. 5 of 20

financial assistance to communities in their country of origin, not explicitly for social movement mobilization. Gleeson
and Bloemraad (2013) report that the presence of immigrant service organizations benefits immigrant mobilization.
On the west coast of the United States, these include immigrant advocacy organizations such as AIWA, CARECEN,
CHIRLA, El Rescate, CASA, and PCUN5 (Sifuentez, 2016) that have assisted Mexican and Central American immi-
grants for decades.
Community‐based organizations offer immigrants valuable human, social, and legal services. At other times, they
can be appropriated as a key mobilizing structure for immigrant rights movement campaigns. For example, during the
spring of 2006, there were diverse immigrant advocacy groups and organizations at the forefront of the movement
against HR 4437 (Cordero‐Guzmán, Martin, Quiroz‐Becerra, & Theodore, 2008; Pantoja, Menjívar, & Magaña, 2008).
Immigrant advocacy networks across the United States mobilized to oppose the legislation, and these networks of
organizations also called for the end of anti‐immigrant policies. Immigrant advocacy groups also include churches,
labor unions, student organizations, and other grassroots coalitions that coordinate actions in both English and
Spanish for Latinx immigrants.
Studies of Southeast Asian immigrant movement emergence suggest that the density of community social ties
serves as a major resource contributing to mobilization—the transition from dispersion for early arrivals to the forma-
tion of larger ethnic enclaves. Xiong (2016) shows that Hmong immigrant mobilization began to take off in the 1990s
once the community accumulated sufficient economic resources and benefited from stronger social network ties
among co‐ethnics. Ong and Meyer (2008), using protest event data of Vietnamese immigrant mobilizations between
1975 and 2009, also demonstrate peaks of protest in the 1990s once immigrant communities became geographically
concentrated and had the network capacity to launch collective action campaigns. In other demographic models,
states with large Latinx and immigrant populations appear to facilitate mobilization at higher rates and increase orga-
nizational resources (Reese, Ramirez, & Estrada‐Correa, 2013).
Scholars have also found that religious clubs/organizations and churches also bring immigrant communities from
different ethnic groups together and reinforce panethnic identities among group members (Lopez & Espiritu, 1990;
Okamoto & Mora, 2014; Ricourt & Danta, 2003). Such processes facilitate multi‐group coalitions (Van Dyke & Amos,
2017) and immigrant mobilization. Indeed, on the eve of the massive 2006 demonstrations for immigrant rights, the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops organized a “Justice for Immigrants” campaign that was coordinated nationally
through dioceses and parishes (Heredia, 2011). The campaign was indispensable in mobilizing communities in the
spring of 2006.
Labor unions and labor‐based associations offer another major organizational resource for immigrant mobiliza-
tion. Milkman (2011) finds that immigrant participation in the U.S. labor movement takes the form of distinctive
strands and serves as one of the most important populations to unionize to achieve worker protections in various
low wage sectors. One strand is traditional trade unionism. This consists of immigrants working in low‐wage occupa-
tions (e.g., janitors, retail, low‐wage service, and hospitality) and belonging to unions that advocate for immigrant
rights and a path to citizenship. This would include how the SEIU‐sponsored Fight for $15 living wage campaign
incorporated immigrant demands within its mobilizations between 2012 and 2018. Immigrants may at times be ame-
nable to join a labor union due to their “strong working‐class immigrant social networks” but are often not organized
because of the limited amount of union resources being allocated to organize this population and overall decline in
union density (Milkman, 2011, p. 365–366). Another strand is immigrant involvement with non‐governmental orga-
nizations (NGOs) who focus on immigrant workers rights.
Along these same lines of labor‐based resources, other scholars have highlighted worker and day labor centers
(De Lara, Reese, & Struna, 2016; Fine, 2006). Some worker centers are ethnic‐based, while others focus on a partic-
ular industry or economic sector. In Los Angeles, the Pilipino Worker Center (PWC), Korean Immigrant Workers'
Association (KIWA), the Labor‐Community Strategy Center, and the Garment Worker Center (GWC) provide an array
of assets to assist in immigrant organizing. Nazgol (2010) found that the PWC assisted in unifying U.S. born with for-
eign‐born Filipinos to launch collective action campaigns over work place grievances and community‐based issues
such as low‐cost housing. The GWC has launched several campaigns supporting immigrant garment workers,
6 of 20 MORA ET AL.

especially over low pay and health and safety conditions in plants, and forced large clothing retailers into settlements,
such as Forever 21 (Archer, Gonzales, Lee, Gandhi, & Herrera, 2010). Milkman and Terriquez (2012) show how
unions in the greater Los Angeles region, such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), organized immi-
grant workers and engaged in collective action opposing anti‐immigrant initiatives such as Proposition 187 and HR
4437.
Another major resource for the immigrant rights movement is found in the legacy of Mexican American social
movement organizations (SMOs) that mushroomed in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the larger Chicano movement.
These organizations include the UFW, LULAC, MALDEF, and MAPA6 (Muñoz, 2007). Not only did these organiza-
tions survive into the 21st century, but they deposited a legacy of mobilizing skills available to new generations of
activists. Several studies of Latinx immigrant mobilization refer to such organizations as key components of the
movement coalitions (Mora, 2016; Shaw, 2011).
Social movement studies view previous mobilization as another resource to organize in the present (Ganz, 2009).
Organizations and social movement activists can use their past experiences mobilizing and the alliances formed to
launch mobilization drives (Almeida, 2014; Edwards & McCarthy, 2004). Scholars document the role of the 2003
immigrant freedom rides in creating alliances for mobilization in 2006 (Bloemraad et al., 2011; Milkman, 2011).
The 2003 Immigrant Worker Freedom Ride was organized by labor unions that created a broad coalition of religious,
student, ethnic, and community groups, which helped facilitate the networks for the mega marches 3 years later in
2006. The immigrant freedom rides provided a key support network for the mobilizations, given that 62 percent
of the cities where freedom rides stopped in 2003 reported protests in the spring of 2006 (Bloemraad et al.,
2011). Previous mobilizations like the freedom rides build social ties and an organizational infrastructure for future
campaigns (Andrews, 2004).
Marquez‐Benitez and Pallares (2016) discuss the 2012 “Journey for Justice: No Papers, No Fear” bus ride, which
traveled from Arizona to North Carolina. The authors assert the places where the bus stopped were “organizing
opportunities” that included trainings and workshops to help local activists and groups learn about protest tactics.
Providing these spaces where local grassroots groups can come together act as a resource to mobilize immigrant
groups in the future. Waldinger et al. (1996) also show that immigrants with histories of organizing in their countries
of origin can be a vital asset for the labor movement in the United States, such as the role of Salvadoran immigrants in
the Justice for Janitors campaigns in Los Angeles. Indeed, the Justice for Janitors campaigns were so successful in the
1990s, that the labor movement placed more emphasis on organizing immigrant workers in the aftermath (Erickson,
Fisk, Milkman, Mitchell, & Wong, 2002).
Diaz and Rodriguez (2007), the major coordinators of the historic 2006 immigrant rights marches in Los
Angeles, describe several pro‐immigrant campaigns prior to 2006 that built support for the record‐breaking mobili-
zation in the spring of 2006. It was a group of Latinx leaders that had the experience of organizing in the 1980s
Central American peace movement, against Prop 187 in the 1990s, and other repressive measures in the early
2000s that provided a body of knowledge on how to organize the 2006 mass marches (Gonzales, 2013). Diaz
(2010) even documents veterans from the 1960s and 1970s Chicanx movement playing key roles in the 2006 mobi-
lizations in Los Angeles. Brown and Jones (2016) also assert that social movement leaders from the labor and civil
rights movements of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s spearheaded effective immigrant rights movements in Mississippi
in the 21st century.
Latinx youth and youth infrastrucures were integral in these previous mobilization efforts, and some went on to
play key leadership roles in the spring of 2006 marches and other immigrant struggles (Bloemraad et al., 2011). In cit-
ies where there is a higher percentage of immigrant youth, there is a greater likelihood of heightened mobilization,
especially where high schools (and junior high schools) are in close proximity to one another (Barberena, Jiménez,
& Young, 2014). A major tactic in the 2006 demonstrations involved student walkouts, emulated from the Chicanx
movement of the late 1960s. Local ethnic media serve as another resource available to immigrant rights movements
(Zepeda‐Millán, 2017). By securing the editorial support of local newspapers or by broadcasting pro‐immigrant mes-
sages on local radio stations, organizers are able to mobilize communities. Ramírez (2011, p. 63) and Wang and Winn
MORA ET AL. 7 of 20

(2011) contend that the Spanish‐language radio was crucial in 2006 for gaining support for the protests among Lati-
nos across the country. This is consistent with previous evidence that mass media exposure such as newspapers
shaped patterns of mobilization during the southern sit‐in movement of the early 1960s (Andrews & Biggs, 2006)
and radio in the southern textile mill strike wave of the 1930s (Roscigno & Danaher, 2004). Ramírez (2011) makes
the argument that the Spanish‐language media were a necessary alternative in getting information into Latina/o
immigrant communities where English acts as a secondary language. Latina/os tune into radio more than any other
media source, and they listen more than non‐Latinx groups (Ramírez, 2011, p. 68). Nationally sindicated Spanish lan-
guage radio hosts like Eduardo Sotelo “El Piolin” and Renán Almendarez Coello “El Cucuy” were also crucial in pro-
moting pro‐immigrant mobilizations in 2006. Additionally, Spanish‐language radio was instrumental in reaching
Latinx immigrants in the service sectors, who regularly tune in while at work.
Pre‐existing community resources can also help mobilize immigrant communities. For instance, when Zepeda‐
Millán (2014b) studied immigrant mass mobilization in Fort Myers, Florida, he found that Latina/os took local action
by utilizing resources offered by local entrepreneurs (300 small ethnic businesses donated thousands of dollars to
support a local march) and local soccer leagues to organize. Fine (2006) also contends soccer clubs have served as
a source of recruitment for immigrant worker centers. In summary, traditional resource infrastructures such as the
church, labor unions, and ethnic‐based advocacy organizations have played a pivotal role in mobilizing working‐class
and undocumented immigrants. Equally important are non‐obvious resources such as hometown associations, social
service agencies, radio stations, high schools, ethnic entrepreneurs, and soccer clubs.

3 | P A R T I CI P A T I O N

Individual‐level participation seeks to understand the forces motivating individuals to join social movement
campaigns as well as the conditions that deter involvement in contentious politics. Participation in immigrant rights
collective action includes undocumented individuals, citizens, queer immigrant youth, religious activists, and sympa-
thetic allies (Hondagneu‐Sotelo, 2008; McCann, Nishikawa Chávez, Plasencia, & Otawka, 2016; Terriquez, 2015;
Zepeda‐Millán & Wallace, 2013). The individual participation process is examined within the dimensions of (a) social
networks; (b) pre‐existing organizations; (c) social media; and (d) identities.

3.1 | Social networks

Friendship and family networks are primary social relationships that influence individual social movement participa-
tion (Krinsky & Crossley, 2014; Pallares & Flores‐González, 2010). Dionne, DeWitt, Stone, and Suk‐Young Chwe
(2014) sampled 876 people that attended the 2006 May Day immigrant rights demonstrations in Los Angeles. Their
findings indicate that two thirds of participants had four or more friends or family members at the event and one
third had nine or more, with only 2 percent attending alone. This is a high number of individuals participating with
family and friends compared to existing studies of individual participation in protest demonstrations (Klandermans,
2015). In addition, bilingual female youth, 18 and younger, have been found to motivate their social networks of
friends and families to attend pro‐immigrant marches in southern California (Dionne et al., 2014). This demonstrates
the potential broker role played by young bilingual women in facilitating individual‐level mobilization in immigrant
rights protests. Teenage women served as “bridge leaders” (Robnett, 1997) by using their networks and social ties
to recruit friends and family. Others have demonstrated the importance of family networks in pro‐immigrant social
movement participation. Narro, Wong, and Shadduck‐Hernández (2007) examined May Day participation in Atlanta,
Georgia, and report that most of the participants were younger immigrant workers who were accompanied by their
families. For the 2006 mobilizations in general, immigrant children with citizenship rights encouraged their parents to
attend protest rallies (Bloemraad & Trost, 2008).
8 of 20 MORA ET AL.

3.2 | Pre‐existing organizations

Pre‐existing organizations also influence individual level participation in immigrant movements. Individuals affiliated
with multiple groups committed to migrants and their families are more likely to engage in pro‐immigrant mobiliza-
tion. Such associations include grassroots organizations, small nonprofits, labor unions, independent labor centers,
anti‐globalization and anti‐war collectives, and youth and student groups (e.g., MEChA; Gonzales, 2013).
In the 2006 immigrant spring, the Catholic Church as an institution was used to encourage and mobilize immi-
grant and non‐immigrant community members to participate in demonstrations opposing HR 4437 (Barreto,
Manzano, Ramirez, & Rim, 2009). Similarly, Bloemraad et al. (2011) report the Catholic Church as one of the “Big
3” organizations (along with labor unions and ethnic media) that helped mobilize individual participants during the
spring of 2006. Church parishes reach large blocks of people, facilitating the dissemination of information about
rallies and marches for individuals to participate (Morris, 1984). In Los Angeles, the religious leader of the nation's
largest Archdiocese, Archbishop Mahoney, urged Catholics to fast and pray for social justice on immigration reform
(Bloemraad et al., 2011; Hondagneu‐Sotelo, 2008). Not only did Catholic churches mobilize individuals, but so did
Evangelical churches with large working‐class immigrant congregations. Hence, empirical studies suggest that individ-
uals with attendance in pro‐immigrant churches or affiliation with other social organizations are more likely to partic-
ipate in collective action for immigrant rights.

3.3 | Social media

Social media constitutes a powerful tool to mobilize individual social movement participants in the 21st century (Earl
& Kimport, 2011). During 2006, immigrant youth recruited other participants through social media, particularly
through the viral spreading of MySpace postings, and by recruiting through text messaging and word of mouth
(Barberena et al., 2014; Vélez, Huber, Lopez, De La Luz, & Solórzano, 2008). Milkman (2017) discusses the role of
Millennials in social movements in the post‐2008 era, including the undocumented immigrant “Dreamers” movement
and the critical role new social media plays in individual‐level participation. In another example of the importance of
social media, Mallapragada (2014) notes the importance of online organizations in mobilizing South Asian immigrants
who identify as Desi. The Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) community organization has been involved in off‐line
and online work in denouncing state repression and anti‐immigration and border control policies. Through their
online posts, videos, and campaigns, they have influenced south Asian and Indo‐Caribbean immigrants to view the
attacks on Muslim immigrants and other immigrants of color since 9/11 as tied to the need to fortify a collective
struggle of resistance (Mallapragada, 2014). Social media and text messaging are heavily relied on for organizing
and reaching individuals to participate and support the movement. For immigrant communities in the 2006 Chicago
protests, ethnic media were also an important source of information for individual participants. In Chicago's May 1,
2006, marches, about half of the participants heard about the demonstration through Spanish‐language radio, televi-
sion, and newspapers (Flores‐Gonzalez, Pallares, Herring, & Krysan, 2006).

3.4 | Identities
How immigrants and their supporters perceive their collective identities also shapes individual‐level movement par-
ticipation. Street, Jones‐Correa, and Zepeda‐Millán (2017) find that children with undocumented parents are more
interested in politics and are more likely to see protests as politically effective. They also find that the children of
undocumented migrants are more likely to have attended an immigration march or rally in the past year and are more
likely to have family members who joined the 2006 immigrant rights demonstrations. In another example of the
importance of undocumented status as a collective identity in facilitating political activism, Terriquez (2017) finds that
undocumented youth are more likely to participate in protest than their peers with citizenship rights. For individuals
with a mixed‐status family identity, having at least one family member as undocumented makes one's participation in
the immigrant rights movement more likely.7
MORA ET AL. 9 of 20

Zepeda‐Millán (2014a) examined non‐participation in the 2006 immigrant protests in New York. He found that
Latino immigrants with a Dominican or Mexican ethnic identity participated in higher numbers compared to other
immigrant groups, especially non‐Latinos. Other immigrant groups failed to mobilize to the same extent because
many felt that HR 4437 mostly affected immigrants with a Latinx identity. In the same study, state repressive threats
served to demobilize other immigrant groups with different national and religious identities. For instance, Zepeda‐
Millán (2014a) contends that the Muslim community did not participate in large numbers in pro‐immigrant protests
in New York out of fear in the context of heightened discrimination in the post‐9/11 era. Students of collective
action need to continue to examine non‐participation in immigrant rights movements and how individual decisions
are shaped by varying collective identities.
Schiller et al. (1989) analyzed the organizing history of Haitian immigrants in New York City and how a common
Haitian identity needed to develop before mobilization occurred. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, emerging leaders
helped create a Haitian ethnic identity separate from other Black and Caribbean immigrant identities to advance
goals and resources for Haitian immigrants (Wah & Pierre‐Louis, 2004). For instance, the Haitian American Political
Organization (HAPO) encouraged a shared Haitian ethnic identity and drew on the Haitian homeland for symbols
of common heritage in order to recruit individuals to mobilize for improved conditions for Haitians in the United
States. A collective Haitian ethnic identity helped galvanize individuals from various class and social backgrounds into
a sustained movement, including new Haitian arrivals and second‐generation Haitian immigrants (Wah & Pierre‐
Louis, 2004).

4 | FRAMING

Framing is used to condense the social world in order to convince adherents, bystanders, and the general public of
the urgency of the social issue at hand and to encourage mobilization (Snow & Benford, 1988). Benford and Snow
(2000, p. 621) emphasize that social movements are more likely to succeed when activists articulate their cause in
terms that are legitimate and meaningful to publics inside and outside the movement. In other words, movement
framings must be congruent or resonate with the personal, everyday experiences of the targets of mobilization.
The meaning articulated by activists in their framing of key claims has a crucial impact on building movements (Snow
et al., 2014). In order to fully understand mobilization, students of collective action observe framing strategies used
by immigrant communities to gain support for their local mobilizations. Scholarship suggests some of the core frames
used to mobilize participants and support for immigrant movements incorporate elements of family, diligent workers,
human rights, indigenous cultures, and appeals to panethnicity.
Family frames are viewed as critical in mobilizing participants for immigrant social movements (Martinez, 2010;
Pallares, 2014). Bloemraad et al. (2016) conducted survey experiments to analyze the frames that built support for
legalization of immigrants among registered California voters. Their results show that frames connected to family lead
to more support for undocumented immigrants, especially from self‐identified conservatives. Bloemraad et al. (2011)
argue that active framing work was fundamental in building an emerging sense of ethnic solidarity in the marches of
2006 and report that the most successful frames were ones that highlighted American values of family and work.
They contend that the “family unity” frame helped emphasize the role of immigrants as parents and family members
and was used to demonstrate how anti‐immigrant policies contradict U.S. democratic ideals by failing to value all fam-
ilies as equal. Another strategy that was successful involved framing immigrants as workers and consumers in the
national economy, which helped portray immigrants as “good Americans.” The characterization of immigrants as eco-
nomic contributors offers a compelling frame, because it also serves as a counter to the view of immigrants as a drain
on the economy and the welfare state. Although some frames emphasize the contribution of immigrants, they may
also create categories of “deserving” and “not deserving” immigrants, especially in framing strategies invoked by
countermovements (Brown, 2013; Reese, 2011). Future work should explore which framing strategies are most inclu-
sive in creating broader mobilization potential.
10 of 20 MORA ET AL.

Human rights is another framing strategy used for immigrant rights mobilization. For instance, the master frame
“Immigrant Rights are Human Rights” was used by advocacy organizations to restore public assistance benefits for
non‐citizens during the PRWORA8 “welfare reform” debates in the mid 1990s (Fujiwara, 2005, p. 81). This framing
strategy resonated with the American public and mobilized pro‐immigrant forces to hold Congress accountable for
the lives of elderly and disabled immigrants who would be affected by the loss of their Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) and food stamp benefits (Fujiwara, 2005). During these same welfare policy debates, Hein (2006) documents
differences in establishing “injustice frames” and the subsequent propensity to mobilize based on gender and previ-
ous political experiences among Hmong and Cambodian immigrant populations.
Terriquez (2015) discusses the importance of framing the undocumented youth movement as human and unafraid.
Dreamers organized “Coming Out of the Shadows” campaigns between 2010 and 2012 to publicly declare their
undocumented status in order to combat the social stigma. Activists would frame their precarious legal status and sit-
uation as inhuman to reach a broader audience. These framing strategies were useful in gaining support for the move-
ment from the general U.S. public but also helped mobilize other undocumented youth who feel the threat of living “in
the shadows.” Another useful framing strategy for DREAMers has been using the image of butterflies. Butterflies are
used to highlight migration as a natural process, that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and the permeability
of borders (Jobin‐Leeds, Sen, Darder, & AgitArte [Organization], 2016, p. 99). More framing studies should examine the
role of art, murals, and other cultural work in encouraging participation and support for immigrant movements.
Immigrant rights activists also use panethnicity as a framing strategy and a collective identity to coordinate wider
coalitions among groups with varying national and ethnic origins. Lopez and Espiritu (1990) focus on how
panethnicity brings together organizations and emphasizes the commonalities among diverse ethnic subgroups,
eventuating in greater levels of solidarity. To minimize inter‐group conflict, leaders must balance the needs of diverse
constituencies by creating narratives about the different forms in which subgroups contribute to the panethnic
movement as a whole (Okamoto & Mora, 2014). The use of Mesoamerican indigenous dress, rituals, music, and sym-
bols in immigrant rights demonstrations and rallies also promotes panethnicity and solidarity among Mexican and
Central American origin populations (De la Torre & Gutiérrez Zúñiga, 2013; Kubal, 2008; Zermeño, 2017).
Martinez (2008) examined the effects of collective action frames on the development of ethnic solidarity among
immigrant, naturalized, and U.S.‐born Latina/os. She demonstrated how grassroots organizers who coordinated the
2006 immigrant rights mobilizations reinforced a sense of ethnic solidarity through panethnicity, by emphasizing that
“we are all flowers from the same soil.” Collective action was possible by organizers emphasizing the pan‐immigrant
and panethnic ties, human rights, and family values between immigrant and U.S.‐born Latina/os.
In another study, Barreto et al. (2009) found that the framing of the 2006 marches as pan‐“Latino” by activists in
churches and public schools helped gain sympathy for the movement and extend the support to Latinx citizens. In
other words, these rallies were not just limited to recent Mexican and Central American immigrants but garnered
support across Latina/os to include citizens and non‐citizens.

5 | OUTCOMES

One of the reasons for studying social movements is that they will potentially create meaningful social change
(Amenta, Caren, & Olasky, 2005; Andrews, 2001; Cress & Snow, 2000). Policy changes, such as the passage of
new legislation, (Amenta et al., 2010), the implementation of pro‐immigrant ordinances at the local level (Steil & Vasi,
2014), or the prevention of unfavorable measures (i.e., policy threats), are all primary outcomes for social movements.
Although comprehensive immigration reform has not been achieved, mobilization by undocumented communi-
ties and their allies has brought some policy wins at the federal and state level. Undocumented youth began organiz-
ing efforts in the 2000s to build local and national networks of advocacy organizations (Seif, 2011). For example,
undocumented youth began to organize locally and nationally in 25 states, and the California Dream Network
mobilized state‐wide on 30 campuses (Zimmerman, 2012). After various mobilization efforts from undocumented
MORA ET AL. 11 of 20

youth and their allies, The California Dream Act passed in 2011, and other states have passed similar versions
(Chavez, 2013, p. 182). The California Dream Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) allows chil-
dren that were brought to the United States under the age of 16, to qualify for in‐state tuition and be able to receive
financial aid.
One important national policy outcome for undocumented youth has been the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) legislation, which was implemented in the summer of 2012. DACA gives qualified Dreamers9 relief
from deportation and permission to work in the United States legally (Milkman, 2014; Zatz & Rodriguez, 2015).
DREAMers and their allies were actively mobilizing prior to the passage of the legislation by using their personal
narratives (borrowing from LGBTQ activists) of “coming out” as undocumented and unafraid during protest cam-
paigns between 2010 and 2012 (Nicholls, 2013; Seif, 2011; Swerts, 2015; Terriquez, 2015; Zimmerman, 2016).
Undocumented youth engaged in civil disobedience actions including chaining themselves to the White House. Four
undocumented students occupied Senator McCain's office in Arizona in May 2010, followed by other occupations,
hunger strikes, and marches (Nicholls & Fiorito, 2015). There have been other movements pushing for federal exec-
utive action such as United We Dream and its allies coordinating the “Education Not Deportation” campaign and
pushing president Obama in 2012 in the “Right to Dream Campaign” to pass DACA legislation (Zatz & Rodriguez,
2015). Scholars have even shown positive mental health consequences for DACA recipients compared to undocu-
mented youth lacking legal protections (Patler & Pirtle, 2017).
Public opinion can also be an important outcome of social movements (Banaszak & Ondercin, 2016). One crit-
ical impact for the immigrant rights movement has been the ability to change attitudes towards immigrants.
Branton, Martinez‐Ebers, Carey, and Matsubayashi (2015) use the 2006 Latino National Survey and protest event
data to examine the influence of the 2006 immigration protests on immigration policy preferences. The authors
find that exposure to protest leads to increased support for less restrictive immigration policy. Right‐wing political
parties and their anti‐immigrant campaign platforms likely act as a counter frame and a negative influence on
public opinion, eventuating in increasing attacks and hate crimes against vulnerable immigrant and refugee
populations.
Steil and Vasi (2014) use event history analysis and interviews to explain local‐level immigration policies. They
demonstrate that the presence of pro‐immigrant organizations in a locality has significant positive effects in a com-
munity adopting a pro‐immigrant ordinance. Additionally, a favorable political context also contributes to the passage
of pro‐immigrant policies, especially in municipalities with a high percentage of democratic voters and Latinx elected
officials. Movements may even impact identities. Zepeda‐Millán and Wallace (2013), examining the impacts of the
2006 demonstrations, find that the protests heightened Latina/os' sense of racial identity.
One of the most important conditions associated with successful immigrant rights policy outcomes involves
multi‐racial and broad coalitions. Reese (2011) found that the policy threats that accompanied the 1996 welfare
reforms (PRWORA) stimulated multi‐ethnic coalitions that effectively prevented welfare cuts to documented immi-
grants in several states. Brown and Jones (2016) demonstrate how Black‐Latinx movement coalitions in Mississippi
mobilized to triumphantly thwart 282 anti‐immigrant bills in the state since 2005. In summary, movement outcomes
for immigrant rights campaigns range from preventing unfavorable policies (e.g., HR 4437) or the passage of favorable
local and national policies (e.g., state DREAM Acts and DACA) to influencing public opinion, racial identities, and even
mental health.

6 | C O N CL U S I O N

We have examined how recent studies on immigrant mobilization inform social movement scholarship in four key
areas: emergence, participation, framing, and outcomes. In this final section, we highlight potential future lines of
work in each of the four areas. These suggestions are based on the current state of knowledge of immigrant rights
movements.
12 of 20 MORA ET AL.

6.1 | Emergence
One of the main mechanisms that drives immigrant movements is policy threats. Future work will contribute to
movement research by more precisely defining the types of policy threats that trigger immigrant mobilization. In addi-
tion, because immigrant mobilization faces so many obstacles in terms of legal status, resource scarcity, and state
repression, we need more investigations into why some regions rise up in collective action in the face of threats while
other immigrant localities remain quiescent. One promising avenue in addressing this question resides in understand-
ing the resource infrastructure available in communities to resist anti‐immigrant threats. Future studies should also
continue to develop more systematic ways of examining the impacts of state repression on immigrant mobilization.
One such strategy involves empirically documenting ICE workplace and community raids (as well as deportations), in
order to account for the total repression occurring in localities and how it encourages or deters immigrant rights
movement activity (Heredia, 2016). More work is also needed on the cleavages between ethnic groups and relation-
ships among immigrants with different types of legal status in terms of the conditions that are most likely to lead to
broad coalitions and sustained mobilization.

6.2 | Participation
In the area of immigrant movement participation, the role of collective identities continues to be a powerful predic-
tor. Within debates on collective identities, the recognition of intersectionality appears to be particularly promising.
Chun, Lipsitz, and Shin (2013), for example, show how organizations such as Asian Immigrant Women Advocates
(AIWA) create spaces for immigrant women to become grassroots leaders by using an intersectional approach that
acknowledges the multiple and simultaneous forms of oppression that immigrant women face (sexism, racism, class
oppression, nativism, and language discrimination). These collective efforts serve to empower immigrant women,
who work collectively on community‐driven campaigns to improve their work place conditions and help change local
public policy. Similarly, Terriquez (2015) argues that key activists can help generate intersectional participation, as she
demonstrates with queer undocumented youth, who serve as key broker organizers in immigrant rights mobilization.
Scholarship needs to continue to examine intersectionality and the leadership roles of immigrant women of color,
undocumented queer youth, and other immigrant groups with multiple marginalized identities that are often given
less attention in the general social movements literature. Intersectionality has the potential to be used as a unifying
space, to build solidarity and understanding between various marginalized groups, who share overlapping identities
beyond immigration status (Terriquez, Brenes, & Lopez, 2018).

6.3 | Framing
A particularly fascinating area of the immigrant rights movement resides in the framing strategies employed by activ-
ists and leaders. At the empirical level, social movement studies would benefit from systematic analysis of the cultural
tool kits used by the movement. More specifically, focused research on the banners, songs, cultural symbols, and
websites of immigrant rights activists would open up greater understandings of the emotions evoked and the ability
to articulate grievances convincingly to larger publics. Comparative studies that examine framing strategies across
campaigns or geographical regions in relation to movement outcomes would be especially informative to current
scholarship.

6.4 | Outcomes
Research demonstrates that social movement mobilization by immigrant communities and their allies has led to policy
gains at the state and federal level, including access for better educational and work place opportunities. However,
these policy wins benefit a small percentage of the estimated 11.3 million undocumented individuals in the country.
Students of collective action need to continue to better document the conditions associated with successful
MORA ET AL. 13 of 20

immigrant movement outcomes (e.g., framing strategies, level of mobilization, coalitional breadth, and tactical
choices). Especially beneficial are studies that show linkages of immigrant rights movements with other struggles over
racial justice, civil rights, welfare rights, and labor. In the case of immigrant movements, this would not just be an aca-
demic exercise but could also provide indispensable information to immigrant organizations and activists for future
campaigns. Such an accumulation of knowledge could potentially improve the lives and life chances for millions of
families.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Marjorie Zatz and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
They also appreciate the assistance of the Sociology Compass section Editors Timothy Kubal and Paul Brian
McInerney.

ENDNOTES
1
Given the militarization of the U.S. Mexican border over the past 20 years, circular migration has been cut off, dispersing
Mexican and Central American immigrant populations deeper into the interior of the United States (Massey, Pren, &
Durand, 2016).
2
Under IRCA, some immigrants who had undocumented status were able to apply for legal residency. However, although
the law had stringent demands and employer sanctions, Calavita (1989) demonstrates through her analysis that growers
benefited from a new supply of foreign‐labor that included legal immigrants, temporary workers, and undocumented
“aliens.” Although policies such as IRCA were implemented to deal with economic and political demands, in reality, the
law had a minimal effect in reducing the size of the undocumented population.
3
In 1996, The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was introduced, which stripped immi-
grants and asylum seekers of various basic legal rights including due process rights (Jonas, 2006). Zatz and Smith (2012)
discuss how (IIRIRA) increased border enforcement and also targeted legal permanent residents and noncitizen immigrants,
who could now be detained or deported for a variety of crimes that had not previously been deportable offenses.
4
The Secure Communities Program is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program which began in 2008. It inte-
grated criminal justice and immigration databases, which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to
information used to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.
5
These organizational acronyms stand for Asian Immigrant Women Advocates (AIWA), Central American Resource Center
(CARECEN), The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), El Rescate, Centro de Acción Autónoma (CASA), and
Piñeros y Campesinos Unidos Noroeste (PCUN).
6
The organizational acronyms stand for United Farm Workers (UFW), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the Mexican American Political Association
(MAPA).
7
There is an estimated 9 million people residing in households with mixed legal status families (Zatz & Rodriguez, 2015).
8
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
9
DREAMers are undocumented immigrants who were brought as children to the United States by their parents (the 1.5
generation; Chavez, 2013, p. 19).

ORCID
Paul Almeida http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6516-1660

RE FE R ENC ES
Abrego, L. J. (2014). Sacrificing families: Navigating laws, labor, and love across borders. Stanford University Press.
Abrego, L. J. (2017). On silences: Salvadoran refugees then and now. Latino Studies, 15(1), 73–85.
Aguirre, A. (2012). Arizona's SB1070, Latino immigrants and the framing of anti‐immigrant policies. Latino Studies, 10(3),
385–394.
Almeida, P. D. (2014). Mobilizing democracy: Globalization and citizen protest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Almeida, P. D. (2018). The role of threat in collective action. In D. Snow, S. Soule, H. Kriesi, & H. McCammon (Eds.), Wiley‐
Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 43–62). Oxford: Blackwell.
14 of 20 MORA ET AL.

Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Soci-
ology, 36, 287–307.
Amenta, E., Caren, N., & Olasky, S. J. (2005). Age for leisure? Political mediation and the impact of the pension movement on
US old‐age policy. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 516–538.
Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social movements and policy implementation: The Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on
poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 71–95.
Andrews, K. T. (2004). Freedom is a constant struggle: The Mississippi civil rights movement and its legacy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Andrews, K. T., & Biggs, M. (2006). The dynamics of protest diffusion: Movement organizations, social networks, and news
media in the 1960 sit‐ins. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 752–777.
Archer, N. A., Gonzales, A. L., Lee, K., Gandhi, S., & Herrera, D. (2010). The garment worker center and the ‘Forever 21’
campaign. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom, & V. Narro (Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy
(pp. 154–166). Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.
Armbruster, R., Geron, K., & Bonacich, E. (1995). The assault on California's Latino immigrants: The politics of Proposition
187. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(4), 655–663.
Banaszak, L. A., & Ondercin, H. L. (2016). Public opinion as a movement outcome: The case of the US women's movement.
Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 21(3), 361–378.
Barajas, M. (2009). The Xaripu community across borders: Labor migration, community, and family. Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press.
Barberena, L., Jiménez, H., & Young, M. P. (2014). “It just happened”: Telescoping anxiety, defiance, and emergent collective
behavior in the student walkouts of 2006. Social Problems, 61(1), 42–60.
Barreto, M. A., Manzano, S., Ramirez, R., & Rim, K. (2009). Mobilization, participation, and solidaridad: Latino participation in
the 2006 immigration protest rallies. Urban Affairs Review, 44(5), 736–764.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review
of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bloemraad, I., Silva, F., & Voss, K. (2016). Rights, economics, or family? Frame resonance, political ideology, and the immi-
grant rights movement. Social Forces, 94(4), 1647–1674.
Bloemraad, I., & Trost, C. (2008). It's a family affair: Intergenerational mobilization in the spring 2006 protests. American
Behavioral Scientist, 52(4), 507–532.
Bloemraad, I., Voss, K., & Lee, T. (2011). The immigration rallies of 2006: What were they, how do we understand them,
where do we go? In K. Voss, & I. Bloemraad (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights (pp. 3–43). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Branton, R., Martinez‐Ebers, V., Carey, T. E., & Matsubayashi, T. (2015). Social protest and policy attitudes: The case of the
2006 immigrant rallies. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 390–402.
Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (2014). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. (2013). Race, legality, and the social policy consequences of anti‐immigration mobilization. American Sociological
Review, 78(2), 290–314.
Brown, H., & Jones, J. (2016). Immigrant rights are civil rights. Contexts, 15(2), 34–39.
Burciaga, E. M., & Martinez, L. M. (2017). How do political contexts shape undocumented youth movements? Evidence from
three immigrant destinations. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 22(4), 451–471.
Burstein, P., Einwohner, R. L., & Hollander, J. A. (1995). The success of political movements: A bargaining perspective. The
Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements, 275–295.
Calavita, K. (1989). The contradictions of immigration lawmaking: The immigration reform and control act of 1986. Law and
Policy, II(I), 17–47.
Calavita, K. (2007). Immigration law, race, and identity. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences., 3, 1–20.
Chavez, L. (2013). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Chun, J. J., Lipsitz, G., & Shin, Y. (2013). Intersectionality as a social movement strategy: Asian immigrant women advocates.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 917–940.
Cordero‐Guzmán, H., Martin, N., Quiroz‐Becerra, V., & Theodore, N. (2008). Voting with their feet nonprofit organizations
and immigrant mobilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(4), 598–617.
Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, polit-
ical mediation, and framing. Annual Review of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104.
MORA ET AL. 15 of 20

Davenport, C. (2009). Media bias, perspective, and state repression: The black panther party. Cambridge University Press.
De la Torre, R., & Gutiérrez Zúñiga, C. (2013). Chicano spirituality in the construction of an imagined nation: Aztlán. Social
Compass, 60(2), 218–235.
De Lara, J. D., Reese, E. R., & Struna, J. (2016). Organizing temporary, subcontracted, and immigrant workers: Lessons from
change to win's warehouse workers united campaign. Labor Studies Journal, 41(4), 309–332.
Diaz, J. (2010). Organizing the brown tide: La Gran Epoca Primavera 2006 en Los Angeles, an insider's story. University of Cal-
ifornia, Riverside. PhD Dissertation, Department of Sociology.
Diaz, J., & Rodriguez, J. (2007). Undocumented in America. New Left Review, 47, 93–106.
Dionne, K. Y., DeWitt, D., Stone, M., & Suk‐Young Chwe, M. (2014). The May 1 marchers in Los Angeles: Overcoming con-
flicting frames, bilingual women connectors, English‐language radio, and newly politicized Spanish speakers. Urban Affairs
Review, 1–30.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.),
The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Oxford: Blackwell.
Erickson, C. L., Fisk, C. L., Milkman, R., Mitchell, D. J., & Wong, K. (2002). Justice for janitors in Los Angeles: Lessons from
three rounds of negotiations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(3), 543–567.
Fine, J. (2006). Worker centers: Organizing communities at the edge of the Dream. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Flores‐Gonzalez, N., Pallares, A., Herring, C., & Krysan, M. (2006). UIC Immigrant Mobilization Project: General Survey Findings.
Press Release. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Fox, J., & Bada, X. (2011). Migrant civic engagement. In I. Bloemraad, & K. Voss (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights: The fight
for inclusion in 21st century America (pp. 142–160). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fujiwara, L. H. (2005). Immigrant rights are human rights: The reframing of immigrant entitlement and welfare. Social Prob-
lems, 52(1), 79–101.
Ganz, M. (2009). Why David sometimes wins: Leadership, organization, and strategy in the California farm worker movement.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gleeson, S. (2015). Brokering immigrant worker rights: An examination of local immigration control, administrative capacity
and civil society. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(3), 470–492.
Gleeson, S., & Bloemraad, I. (2013). Assessing the scope of immigrant organizations official undercounts and actual underrep-
resentation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 346–370.
Golash‐Boza, T. M. (2012). Immigration nation: Raids, detentions, and deportations in post‐9/11 America. Boulder, Colorado:
Paradigm Publishers.
Golash‐Boza, T. M. (2015). Deported: Immigrant policing, disposable labor, and global capitalism. New York: New York Univer-
sity Press.
Goldstone, J. A., & Tilly, C. (2001). Threat (and opportunity): Popular action and state response in the dynamics of conten-
tious action. In R. Aminzade, J. A. Goldstone, D. McAdam, E. Perry, W. H. Sewell, S. Tarrow, & C. Tilly (Eds.), Silence and
voice in the study of contentious politics (pp. 179–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzales, A. (2013). Reform without justice: Latino migrant politics and the homeland security state. Oxford, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Hein, J. (2006). Ethnic origins: The adaptation of Cambodian and Hmong refugees in four American cities. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Heredia, L. L. (2011). From prayer to protest: The immigrant rights movement and the Catholic Church. In I. Bloemraad, & K.
Voss (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights (pp. 101–122). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Heredia, L. L. (2016). Of radicals and DREAMers: Harnessing exceptionality to challenge immigration control. Association of
Mexican American Educators Journal, 9(3), 74–85.
Hondagneu‐Sotelo, P. (2008). God's heart has no borders: How religious activists are working for immigrant rights. University of
California Press.
Inclán, M., & Almeida, P. D. (2017). Ritual demonstrations versus reactive protests: Participation across mobilizing contexts in
Mexico City. Latin American Politics and Society, 59(4), 47–74.
Jobin‐Leeds, G., Sen, R., Darder, A., & AgitArte (Organization) (2016). When we fight, we win: Twenty‐first‐century social move-
ments and the activists that are transforming our world. New York: The New Press.
Jonas, S. (2006). Reflections on the great immigration battle of 2006 and the future of the Americas. Social Justice, 33(1),
6–20.
16 of 20 MORA ET AL.

Kivisto, P., & Faist, T. (2010). Beyond a border: The causes and consequences of contemporary immigration. Los Angeles: Pine
Forge Press.
Klandermans, B. (2015). Motivations to action. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements, 219–230.
Krinsky, J., & Crossley, N. (2014). Social movements and social networks: Introduction. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 1–21.
Kubal, T. (2008). Cultural movements and collective memory: Christopher Columbus and the rewriting of the national origin myth.
New York: Palgrave.
Kubrin, C., Zatz, M., & Martinez, R. (Eds.) (2012). Punishing immigrants: Policy, politics, and injustice. New York: NYU Press.
Lopez, D., & Espiritu, Y. L. (1990). Panethnicity in the United States: A theoretical framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13,
198–224.
Mallapragada, M. (2014). Rethinking Desi: Race, class, and online activism of South Asian immigrants in the United States.
Television & New Media, 15(7), 664–678.
Marquez‐Benitez, G., & Pallares, A. (2016). Not one more: Linking civil disobediences and public anti‐deportation campaigns.
North American Dialogue, 19(1), 13–22.
Martinez, L. M. (2008). “Flowers from the Same Soil”: Latino solidarity in the wake of the 2006 immigrant mobilizations.
American Behavioral Scientist, 52(4), 557–579.
Martinez, L. M. (2010). Politicizing the family: How grassroots organizations mobilize Latinos for political action in Colorado.
Latino Studies, 8(4), 463–484.
Massey, D. S., & Capoferro, C. (2006). Sálvese quien pueda: Structural adjustment and emigration from Lima. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2006(606), 116–127.
Massey, D. S., Durand, J., & Pren, K. A. (2014). Explaining undocumented migration to the US. International Migration Review,
48(4), 1028–1061.
Massey, D. S., Pren, K. A., & Durand, J. (2016). Why border enforcement backfired. American Journal of Sociology, 121(5),
1557–1600.
Massey, D. S., & Sana, M. (2003). Patterns of U.S. migration from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. Migraciones
Internacionales, 2(2), 5–39.
McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. New York: Oxford University Press.
McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.),
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp.
23–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdam, D. (1999) [1982]). Political process and the development of black insurgency (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McAdam, D. (2003). Beyond structural analysis: Toward a more dynamic understanding of social movements. Social move-
ments and networks: Relational approaches to collective action, 281–298.
McCann, J. A., Nishikawa Chávez, K. A., Plasencia, M., & Otawka, H. (2016). The changing contours of the immigrant rights
protest movement in the United States: Who demonstrates now? Forum (2194–6183), 14(2), 169–190.
Menjívar, C. (2006). Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants' lives in the United States. American Journal of
Sociology, 111(4), 999–1037.
Menjívar, C. (2010). Immigrants, immigration, and sociology: Reflecting on the state of the discipline. Sociological Inquiry,
80(1), 3–27.
Menjívar, C., Gómez Cervantes, A., & Alvord, D. (2018). The expansion of “crimmigration,” mass detention, and deportation.
Sociology Compass, 12(4).
Milkman, R. (2011). Immigrant workers, precarious work and the U.S. labor movement. Globalizations, 8(3), 361–372.
Milkman, R. (2014). Millennial movements: Occupy wall street and the dreamers. Dissent, 61(3), 55–59.
Milkman, R. (2017). A new political generation: Millennials and the post‐2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review,
82(1), 1–31.
Milkman, R., & Terriquez, V. (2012). We are the ones who are out in front: Women's leadership in the immigrant rights move-
ment. Feminist Studies, 38(3), 723–752.
Mora, M. J. (2016). Local mobilizations: Explaining the outcomes of immigrant organizing in four central valley cities in California,
(unpublished master's thesis). University of California, Merced.
Morris, A. (1984). The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for change. New York: Free Press.
Muñoz, C. (2007). Youth, identity, power: The Chicano movement. London: Verso.
MORA ET AL. 17 of 20

Narro, V., Wong, K., & Shadduck‐Hernández, J. (2007). The 2006 immigrant uprising: Origins and future. New Labor Forum
(Sage Publications Inc.), 16(1), 48–56.
Nazgol, G. (2010). Organizing workers along ethnic lines: The Filipino workers' center. In R. Milkman, J. Bloom, & V. Narro
(Eds.), Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy (pp. 49–70). Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell University
Press.
Ngai, M. M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Nicholls, W. J. (2013). The DREAMers: How the undocumented youth movement transformed the immigrant rights debate.
Stanford University Press.
Nicholls, W. J., & Fiorito, T. (2015). Dreamers unbound: Immigrant youth mobilizing. New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.),
24(1), 86–92.
Okamoto, D., & Ebert, K. (2010). Beyond the ballot: Immigrant collective action in gateways and new destinations in the
United States. Social Problems, 57(4), 529–558.
Okamoto, D., & Mora, G. C. (2014). Panethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 219–239.
Ong, N. T., & Meyer, D. S. (2008). Protest and political incorporation: Vietnamese American protests in Orange County,
1975–2001. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 3(1), 78–107.
Pallares, A. (2014). Family activism: Immigrant struggles and the politics of noncitizenship. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
sity Press.
Pallares, A., & Flores‐González, N. (Eds.) (2010). ¡Marcha!: Latino Chicago and the immigrant rights movement (Vol. 34). Urbana
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Pantoja, A. D., Menjívar, C., & Magaña, L. (2008). The spring marches of 2006 Latinos, immigration, and political mobilization
in the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(4), 499–506.
Paret, M., & Aguilera, G. (2016). Golden state uprising: Migrant protest in California, 1990–2010. Citizenship Studies, 20(3–4),
359–378.
Patler, C., & Pirtle, W. L. (2017). From undocumented to lawfully present: Do changes to legal status impact psychological
wellbeing among Latino immigrant young adults? Social Science & Medicine, 199, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2017.03.009
Pew Research Center (2015). “Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change
Through 2065—Views of Immigration's Impact on U.S. Society Mixed.” Source: For 1965–2015, Pew Research Center
estimates based on adjusted census data.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor people's movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage.
Ponce, A. (2014). Racialization, resistance, and the migrant rights movement: A historical analysis. Critical Sociology, 40(1),
9–27.
Prieto, G. (2016). Opportunity, threat, and tactics: Collaboration and confrontation by Latino immigrant challengers. Research
in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 40, 123–154.
Prieto, G. (2018). Immigrants under threat: Risk and resistance in deportation nation. New York: NYU Press.
Ramakrishnan, S. K. (2005). Democracy in immigrant America: Changing demographics and political participation. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press.
Ramakrishnan, S. K., & Bloemraad, I. (Eds.) (2008). Civic hopes and political realities: Immigrants, community organizations, and
political engagement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ramakrishnan, S. K., & Viramontes, C. (2010). Civic spaces: Mexican hometown associations and immigrant participation.
Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 155–173.
Ramírez, R. (2011). Political mobilization en Español: Spanish language radio and the activation of political identities. In I.
Bloemraad, & K. Voss (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights (pp. 63–81). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reese, E. (2011). They say cutback, we say fight back!: Welfare activism in an era of retrenchment. New York: Russell Sage.
Reese, E., & Ramirez, E. (2002). The new ethnic politics of welfare: Struggles over legal immigrants' rights to welfare in
California. Journal of Poverty, 6(3), 29–62.
Reese, E., Ramirez, E., & Estrada‐Correa, V. (2013). The politics of welfare inclusion: Explaining state variation in legal
immigrants' welfare rights. Sociological Perspectives, 56(1), 97–130.
Ricourt, M., & Danta, R. (2003). Hispanas de Queens: Latino panethnicity in a New York City neighborhood. Cornell University
Press.
Robinson, W. I. (2006). ‘Aqui estamos y no nos vamos!’ Global capital and immigrant rights. Race & Class, 48(2), 77–91.
18 of 20 MORA ET AL.

Robinson, W. I., & Santos, X. (2014). Global capitalism, immigrant labor, and the struggle for justice. Class, Race and Corporate
Power, 2(3), 1–16.
Robnett, B. (1997). How long? How long? African‐American women in the struggle for civil rights. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rodriguez, R. (2017). The war in the valley: Farm labor organizing in a hostile anti‐union environment. Masters Degree Paper,
Department of Sociology, University of California, Merced.
Roscigno, V. J., & Danaher, W. F. (2004). The voice of Southern labor: Radio, music, and textile strikes, 1929–1934 (Vol. 19).
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press.
Sampaio, A. (2015). Terrorizing Latina/o immigrants: Race, gender, and immigration politics in the age of security. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Santos, C., Menjívar, C., & Godfrey, E. (2013). Effects of SB 1070 on children. In L. Magaña, & E. Lee (Eds.), Latino politics and
Arizona's immigration law SB 1070 (pp. 79–92). New York, NY: Springer.
Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schiller, N. G., DeWind, J., Brutus, M. L., Charles, C., Fouron, G., & Thomas, A. (1989). All in the same boat? Unity and diver-
sity in Haitian organizing in New York. Center for Migration Studies Special Issues, 7(1), 167–184.
Seif, H. (2011). Unapologetic and unafraid: Immigrant youth come out from the shadows. In C. A. Flanagan, & B. D. Christens
(Eds.), Youth civic development: Work at the cutting edge: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development (Vol. 134)
(pp. 59–76).
Shaw, R. (2011). Building the labor‐clergy‐immigrant alliance. In K. Voss, & I. Bloemraad (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights:
The fight for inclusion in 21st century America (pp. 82–100). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sifuentez, M. J. (2016). Of forests and fields: Mexican labor in the Pacific Northwest. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Snow, D., Benford, R., McCammon, H., Hewitt, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2014). The emergence, development, and future of the
framing perspective: 25+ years since “frame alignment”. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19(1), 23–46.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, &
S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures; International Social Move-
ment Research 1 (pp. 197–217). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Steil, J. P., & Vasi, I. B. (2014). The new immigration contestation: Social movements and local immigration policy making in
the United States, 2000–2011. American Journal of Sociology, 119(4), 1104–1155.
Street, A., Jones‐Correa, M., & Zepeda‐Millán, C. (2017). Political effects of having undocumented parents. Political Research
Quarterly, 70(4), 818–832.
Strunk, C., & Leitner, H. (2013). Resisting federal–local immigration enforcement partnerships: Redefining ‘Secure Commu-
nities’ and public safety. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1(1), 62–85.
Swerts, T. (2015). Gaining a voice: Storytelling and undocumented youth activism in Chicago. Mobilization: An International
Quarterly, 20(3), 345–360.
Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, K. Y. (2016). From #BlackLivesMatter to black liberation. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Terriquez, V. (2015). Intersectional mobilization, social movement spillover, and queer youth leadership in the immigrant
rights movement. Social Problems, 62(3), 343–362.
Terriquez, V. (2017). Legal status, civic organizations, and political participation among Latino young adults. The Sociological
Quarterly, 58(2), 315–336.
Terriquez, V., Brenes, T., & Lopez, A. (2018). Intersectionality as a multipurpose collective action frame: The case of the
undocumented youth movement. Ethnicities, 18(2), 260–276.
Van Dyke, N., & Amos, B. (2017). Social movement coalitions: Formation, longevity, and success. Sociology Compass, 11(7).
Vélez, V., Huber, L. P., Lopez, C. B., De La Luz, A., & Solórzano, D. G. (2008). Battling for human rights and social justice: A
Latina/o critical race media analysis of Latina/o student youth activism in the wake of 2006 anti‐immigrant sentiment.
Social Justice, 35(1 (111), 7–27.
Vonderlack‐Navarro, R., & Sites, W. (2015). The bi‐national road to immigrant rights mobilization: States, social movements
and Chicago's Mexican hometown associations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(1), 141–157.
Wah, T., & Pierre‐Louis, F. (2004). Evolution of Haitian immigrant organizations & community development in New York
City. Journal of Haitian Studies, 10(1), 146–164.
MORA ET AL. 19 of 20

Waldinger, R. D., Erickson, C., Milkman, R., Mitchell, D., Valenzuela, A., Wong, K., & Zeitlan, M. (1996). Helots no more: A
case study of the Justice for Janitors campaign in Los Angeles. Los Angeles. Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies
Working Paper Series.
Wallace, S. J., Zepeda‐Millán, C., & Jones‐Correa, M. (2014). Spatial and temporal proximity: Examining the effects of pro-
tests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 433–448.
Walters, W., & Cornelisse, G. (2010). In N. De Genova, & N. Peutz (Eds.), The deportation regime: Sovereignty, space, and the
freedom of movement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wang, T., & Winn, R. (2011). Groundswell meets groundwork: Building on the mobilizations to empower immigrant
communities. In K. Voss, & I. Bloemraad (Eds.), Rallying for immigrant rights: The fight for inclusion in 21st century America
(pp. 44–62). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Waters, M. C., & Ueda, R. (Eds.) (2007). The new Americans: A guide to immigration since 1965. Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard Univ. Press.
Weffer, S. (2013). Immigration protest. In D. A. Snow, D. D. Porta, B. Klandermans, & D. McAdam (Eds.), The Blackwell ency-
clopedia of social and political movements. Oxford: Blackwell.
Xiong, Y. S. (2016). The centrality of ethnic community and military service master frame in Hmong Americans' protest
events and cycles of protest, 1980–2010. Hmong Studies Journal, 17, 1–33.
Zabin, C., & Escala, L. (2002). From civic association to political participation: Mexican hometown associations and Mexican
immigrant political empowerment in Los Angeles. Frontera Norte, 14(27), 7–41.
Zatz, M. S., & Rodriguez, N. (2015). Dreams and nightmares: Immigration policy, youth, and families. Oakland, CA: University of
California Press.
Zatz, M. S., & Smith, H. (2012). Immigration, crime and victimization: Rhetoric and reality. Annual Review of Law and Social
Science, 8, 141–159.
Zepeda‐Millán, C. (2014a). Perceptions of threat, demographic diversity, and the framing of illegality: Explaining (non) partic-
ipation in New York's 2006 immigrant protests. Political Research Quarterly, 67(4), 880–888.
Zepeda‐Millán, C. (2014b). Weapons of the (not so) weak: Immigrant mass mobilization in the US South. Critical Sociology, 1–19.
Zepeda‐Millán, C. (2017). Latino mass mobilization: Immigration, racialization, and activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Zepeda‐Millán, C., & Wallace, S. J. (2013). Racialization in times of contention: How social movements influence Latino racial
identity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(4), 510–527.
Zermeño, A. (2017). Strength‐based interaction rituals: The impact of sweatlodges and danza Mexica on Mexican American well‐
being (unpublished master's thesis). University of California, Merced.
Zimmerman, A. (2016). Transmedia testimonio: Examining undocumented youth's political activism in the digital age. Interna-
tional Journal of Communication, 10, 1886–1906.
Zimmerman, A. M. (2012). Documenting dreams: New media, undocumented youth and the immigrant rights movement.
Confessions of an Aca‐Fan, 2–75.

Maria de Jesus Mora is an ABD doctoral student in the Sociology Ph.D. Program at the University of California,
Merced. Originally from the Salinas Valley, she received her BA and MA in Sociology from the University of Cal-
ifornia, Merced, in 2014 and 2016. Maria's dissertation research explores immigrant rights campaigns against
political and repressive threats in order to better understand how low‐income Latino immigrant communities
are able to sustain mobilization long‐term at the local level. She has presented her work at the Young Scholars
Conference in Notre Dame, in the California Sociological Association (CSA), and III Congreso Nacional de
Sociologia in Honduras. Maria's research interests include immigration, social movements, comparative‐historical,
and Latino/a movements.

Rodolfo Rodriguez is a first generation Xicano from Coalinga, California, and a doctoral student in the Sociology
Ph.D. Program at UC Merced. Rodolfo obtained his bachelors in Sociology and Ethnic Studies with an emphasis
on Chicano studies at Ca State Sacramento. He received his M.A. in Sociology from the University of California,
Merced. Rodolfo's research interests are influenced by his immigrant farm working family/community and activist
work. His research interest focuses on social movements, colonialism (s), farm workers, and labor organizing.
20 of 20 MORA ET AL.

Alejandro Zermeño is a doctoral student in the Sociology Ph.D. Program at the University of California, Merced.
He earned his BA in Sociology with a Minor in Multicultural Leadership at California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, in 2013, and his MA in Sociology from UC Merced in 2017. Zermeño is a scholar of race/ethnicity and
health/illness—with a focus on the multiple forms in which Indigeneity shapes the health outcomes of U.S.
Latino/a communities throughout California.

Paul Almeida is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of California, Merced. Almeida's research cen-
ters on the efficacy of collective action. He has empirically examined the timing and distribution of dozens of
large‐scale campaigns whereby ordinary citizens and excluded social groups mobilized to protect themselves
from the loss of vital necessities of health care, pensions, water/sewer services, utilities, environmental health,
and social citizenship rights. These studies are driven by a larger concern for explaining the conditions under
which societies and communities are most likely to maintain access to basic public goods and services.

How to cite this article: Mora MJ, Rodriguez R, Zermeño A, Almeida P. Immigrant rights and social move-
ments. Sociology Compass. 2018;e12599. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12599