Research & Sources
The guidance we provide is grounded in research on storytelling, persuasion, trauma-informed communication, and community effects of immigration enforcement.
Community Effects of Immigration Enforcement
How enforcement operations affect entire communities - not just those directly targeted - through fear, changed behavior, and collective trauma
The Chilling Effect on Daily Life
Research on immigration enforcement consistently shows effects that extend far beyond those directly targeted. Communities change how they move through public space - avoiding certain areas, changing routines, traveling in groups. Parents keep children home from school. People stop going to church, to doctors, to grocery stores. The fear radiates outward from any enforcement action to affect everyone who looks like they might be targeted. In Minnesota, January 2026: Minneapolis Public Schools closed for two days and moved to online learning through February. Absenteeism spiked across the metro - at least 25% of students from Spanish-speaking households consistently absent, with some schools reporting only 39% attendance. St. Paul schools added virtual options. Childcare centers saw attendance drop by half.
Witnesses Carry Their Own Trauma
Witnessing enforcement actions creates its own psychological burden. Studies of community members who observed ICE operations show symptoms consistent with trauma - hypervigilance, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, intrusive thoughts. Watching neighbors taken, seeing force used, not knowing if someone will come home - these experiences affect witnesses even when they are not personally at risk. The story of what you saw is not a lesser story than the story of what happened to you.
The Weight of Fearing for Someone You Love
Research shows that simply knowing someone who could be detained or deported creates measurable psychological harm. A study of US citizens found that 32% personally knew someone who had been detained or deported. Those who did had nearly twice the odds of screening positive for anxiety, and three times the odds of depression - with the strongest effects when the person was a family member. The majority of immigrants interviewed after enforcement actions described fears that occurred on a daily basis - not triggered by specific events, but as a constant presence. This isn't just worry in the abstract. It's checking your phone constantly. It's the pit in your stomach when they're late coming home. It's the conversations you have about what to do if something happens, and the ones you can't bring yourself to have.
Community Response Is Part of the Story
How communities respond to enforcement is itself a story worth telling. Neighbors who show up when agents arrive. Businesses that post signs refusing entry. Networks that form to share information. These responses are not separate from the story of enforcement - they are part of what this moment is. Telling the story of community response helps others see that resistance is possible and that they are not alone in their response. In Minnesota, January 2026: Over 100 observers showed up when ICE conducted door-to-door operations in Powderhorn. A Hampton Inn in Eagan canceled DHS bookings and removed itself from Hilton's reservation system. Downtown St. Paul hotels posted "temporarily closed" signs. The city filed a lawsuit alleging the federal operation put "schools on lockdown" and "forced some businesses to close."
Secondary Effects Are Primary Effects
The distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects obscures how enforcement actually works. The fear that keeps a father from going to work is as real an effect as an arrest. The child who can't concentrate in school is as affected as the child whose parent was taken. These secondary effects are often the intended effect - enforcement regimes rely on fear to extend their reach beyond their actual capacity. Telling the story of these effects is telling the story of what enforcement does.
Connecting Language
Phrases and framing that bridge divides while staying authentic - sample language for highlighting shared values
Why Connecting Language Matters
When telling personal stories to people who might not share your viewpoint, it helps to use language that highlights shared values and maintains your authenticity. These phrases and sentence structures can bridge ideological gaps while keeping the story personal. They act as bridges, connecting your personal narrative to the listener's own moral universe. By using such language, you reinforce that you're not trying to score points or "win" - you're sharing something true to you in hopes it resonates with something true in them. This creates a space where even those who might disagree politically can meet you in the heart, if only for a moment, and that is where minds begin to open.
Sources:
- Storytelling Toolkit - Connecting Language
"We All Want..."
This is a gentle way to frame a common aspiration. "We all want to feel safe in our homes at night, right?" or "In the end, we all want our kids to have a better life." It's a unifying statement that can preface your personal anecdote or come at the conclusion as a takeaway. Be careful to use it for truly universal (or near-universal) desires, so it doesn't sound false. It can be powerful in a story's reflection: "We all want to be treated with dignity - that's what this taught me."
Sources:
- Bridging Language Patterns
"When I Talk About [Issue], I Mean [Value]"
"When I talk about [issue], what I really mean is [value], because of what I experienced..." This explicitly reframes a hot-button issue in terms of values. For example: "When I talk about immigration, what I really mean is community, because I remember how our block pulled together when it mattered." Or "I know 'defund/abolish ICE' is a charged phrase - but to me it's about freedom and safety after seeing what happened to my neighbor." This kind of line helps someone who hears a trigger word to re-interpret it through your eyes.
Sources:
- Moral Reframing Applications
"I Understand Why You Feel That Way"
"I understand why you feel that way because I've felt that too." Use this in conversation or even anticipate counter-thoughts in your storytelling. It's a perspective-taking move that diffuses tension. For example: "A few years ago, I would have said the same thing - I thought people who broke the law had to face consequences. I still value law and order, but now I also see the human side... because of this thing that happened to me." Showing that you've considered or even shared their perspective makes them more open to your story.
"This Isn't About Politics - It's Personal"
"This isn't about politics for me - it's personal. It's about my [friend/mother/own life]." A reminder like this can be woven in to distinguish your story from the noisy political rhetoric. It steers the conversation to lived experience rather than ideology. For instance: "I know immigration can sound like a political issue on TV, but it stopped being abstract for me that morning with my neighbor. It became personal." This helps listeners see you not as an opponent in a debate, but as a person with a lived stake.
Sources:
- Storytelling Framing
"I'm Sharing Because I Believe in [Ideal]"
"I'm sharing this because I believe in [shared ideal], and I think you do too." This is a softer form of a call to action that appeals to values. For example: "I'm telling you my story because I believe in neighborly love - and I think you do too. That's something our country needs right now, more than ever." It frames the very act of storytelling as an offer based on a mutual ideal (like love, unity, courage, truth).
Sources:
- Values-Based Appeals
Use Inclusive Pronouns When Appropriate
If you can genuinely include the listener in the scope of your story's moral, use "we" language. "What can we do to look out for each other? I ask myself that after what I saw." Or "As a community, we learned something that day..." This suggests you see the listener as an ally or potential ally, not an adversary. It must feel natural, though - don't force a "we" if the person clearly feels separate from your stance. But even acknowledging "we" in a broad sense (we're all Americans, we're all parents, etc.) can create a subtle camaraderie.
Sources:
- Persuasion Research - Inclusive Language
Acknowledge Complexity or Conflict of Values
Sometimes bridging language means admitting a value conflict and finding a balance. "I care about safety and compassion - and I bet you do too. My story is about how I tried to balance those." This avoids false dichotomies. "It was a struggle between my respect for the law and my empathy for a neighbor. I suspect a lot of us feel that tug-of-war." Statements like this can resonate with people who feel torn on an issue.
Sources:
- Moral Complexity in Persuasion
"Imagine If It Was Your..."
"Imagine if it was your [child/parent/friend] - that's what I did, and it changed how I acted." This invites the listener to put themselves or someone they love in your shoes. It's a classic empathy prompt. Use it carefully; it can be powerful but sometimes people react negatively to "imagine if..." if they feel pressured. Delivered sincerely, though, it can strike a chord: "I kept thinking, what if that was my brother being taken away? You'd do anything, right? That feeling is what drove me." This works best after you've told the core story, as a reflection to help them relate.
Sources:
- Empathy Prompts in Storytelling
Adapt to Your Voice
Each of these phrases should be adapted to your voice - the idea is to signal common humanity and values. They act as bridges, connecting your personal narrative to the listener's own moral universe. By using such language, you reinforce that you're not trying to score points or "win" - you're sharing something true to you in hopes it resonates with something true in them. The goal is to create space where even those who might disagree politically can meet you in the heart, if only for a moment - and that is where minds begin to open.
Sources:
- Storytelling Toolkit Summary
Deep Canvassing
Evidence that exchanging personal stories in conversation changes minds durably - even across partisan lines
2020 Immigration Attitudes Study
Even more striking, a 2020 study on immigration attitudes found that arguments alone did nothing to shift views, but the non-judgmental exchange of personal narratives did: when canvassers asked voters to reflect on their experiences and offered their own stories, voters' exclusionary attitudes durably decreased for at least four months afterward. Crucially, these conversations worked across partisan lines - Democratic and Republican participants alike were moved by the human connection.
Why Stories Work: Perspective-Taking
Why do personal stories succeed where logical arguments fail? Stories invite perspective-taking. Deep canvassing conversations typically start by asking the voter to recall a time when they felt judged or excluded, engaging the voter's own memories and feelings. Then the canvasser might share, "I have a story about a time I felt the same way..." - modeling vulnerability. This two-way exchange creates a safe space for people to step into each other's shoes.
Invite Relating, Not Rebutting
The lesson from deep canvassing research: stories and empathy can bridge divides that arguments cannot. By inviting listeners to relate rather than rebut, first-person narratives create a dialogue where hearts and minds can change together. The goal is not to win an argument but to create genuine understanding - and that understanding, once established, proves remarkably durable.
Sources:
Faith Community Responses
How religious leaders and communities are framing the ICE operations theologically - what language they use, what their faith calls them to do
Mixed Christian Clergy (Minneapolis-area)
Practice-forward: Jesus as non-tame, discipleship as costly solidarity, public witness as sacred work, and the Crucifixion as a lens for recognizing "crucified people" now. "We are called to love God. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are called to work for justice and peace." — Martha Bardwell, Our Saviour's Lutheran Church "God has intentionally braided us together for His purpose and His will to drive out and turn over the tables of injustice." — Rev. Dr. B. Charvez Russell, Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church "Hope is the antidote to fear, and we, dear people, will not lose hope." — Rev. Regina Hassanally, Evangelical Lutheran Church "When violence happens, we cannot be silenced. When our neighbors are hunted, we do not hide. We organize." — Rev. JaNae Bates Amari, ISAIAH Minnesota Calls people to: protect neighbors, keep vigil, resist fear, treat accompaniment as faithfulness rather than charity.
Clergy Invoking MLK
Multiple faith leaders invoked Martin Luther King Jr. in response to Renee Good's killing - using MLK as theological grounding, not decoration. AME clergy (Rev. Dr. jennifer s. leath, Rev. Dr. Nikia Robert, Rev. Dr. AnneMarie Mingo) at a White House vigil the day after Good was killed used "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" alongside Micah 6:8. Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness invoked MLK's call for a "radical revolution of values" - moving away from racism, materialism, and militarism. The statement places Good "within a sacred lineage of faith-based activists who lost their lives defending human dignity," referencing the 1980 murders of the Maryknoll Sisters in El Salvador and abolitionist Rev. Elijah Lovejoy. It notes her final words, captured on video: "I'm not mad at you."
Moral Reframing
Speaking to values across political divides - how to frame your story to resonate with listeners who hold different moral priorities
Different Moral Priorities
Telling a personal story that persuades across ideological divides often comes down to moral framing - connecting your message to values the listener holds. Research by social psychologists suggests that we have different moral priorities (fairness, care, loyalty, authority, sanctity, etc.), and political conservatives versus liberals tend to emphasize different values. Liberals typically prioritize care and fairness foundations, while conservatives draw more equally from all foundations, including loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
The Moral Empathy Gap
A common mistake is to assume the other side finds the same arguments compelling as you do. In fact, one reason conversations fail is this "moral empathy gap," where each side keeps preaching its own values instead of addressing the values of the other. We tend to instinctively rely on our own reasons, convictions, and values when trying to persuade, rather than considering what moral foundations motivate the listener. This gap explains why seemingly logical arguments fall flat - they're logical within one moral framework but not another.
What Moral Reframing Means
Moral reframing is a technique to bridge that gap. It means presenting an issue in terms of the listener's moral framework, not just your own. Crucially, this isn't about being disingenuous or manipulative; it's about finding genuine common ground in values, so that your story rings true to you while also resonating with them. You're not changing your beliefs - you're illuminating the facets of your story that align with the listener's core values.
Example: Reframing for Conservative Audiences
Imagine you want to share a story about sheltering an immigrant family from ICE. If your audience is staunchly conservative and values things like law, order, and loyalty, a typical liberal appeal to compassion might not land. Using moral reframing, you might emphasize values like loyalty to community and sacred duty: "My faith taught me to honor the sanctity of family and to love thy neighbor. When my neighbors were in danger, I felt it was my sacred duty to help protect the purity of our community's kindness." This reframing appeals to the listener's sense of sacredness and loyalty (moral foundations they recognize), rather than a purely fairness-based appeal.
Research: Sanctity Framing Works
In one study, researchers rephrased an environmental message in terms of sanctity ("maintain the purity of the natural world...we have a sacred duty to preserve its cleanliness") and found it was more persuasive to conservatives than the standard care-based language about preventing harm. The content of the cause didn't change - protecting the environment - but the value lens did, and that made all the difference in opening ears.
How to Reframe Authentically
To use moral reframing authentically, start by listening. Learn what matters to your intended audience. What values do they talk about? Is it freedom, family security, patriotism, justice? Once you identify an overlap between their values and yours, frame your story around that. Importantly, stick to truths that you honestly share. If you actually care about family and faith, it's fair to lead with those, even if you're talking to someone across the aisle. But if something truly isn't a value of yours, don't pretend it is - find another bridge instead.
Speak Their Language Without Losing Your Voice
The key is to "speak their language" without losing your own voice. Often, our differences are about emphasis rather than completely alien values: almost everyone cares about some form of harm, fairness, liberty, etc., but we rank them differently. So an effective communicator highlights the values that both parties can agree on. For instance: "Even though we might disagree on immigration policy, I think we both believe in being true to our faith and caring for our families. That's exactly why I did what I did..." - such a statement reinforces shared moral principles.
Making Your Perspective Consistent With Their Values
Moral reframing done right retains authenticity because you aren't changing your beliefs; you're illuminating the facets of your story that align with the listener's core values. This helps your story get a fair hearing in hostile territory. Instead of feeling like they must "betray" their side to empathize with you, the listener is invited to see supporting your perspective as consistent with their own values. In sum, moral reframing is about emphasizing common values - it lets you build a narrative bridge across political divides, grounded in sincerity and respect.
Narrative Transportation
Why personal stories lower defenses and change minds - the psychology of being "transported" by a story
Immersion Lowers Defenses
First-person stories have a unique power to immerse listeners in the storyteller's experience. Psychology research on narrative transportation finds that when people become absorbed in a story, they lower their guard against persuasion. They are less likely to counter-argue and more likely to adopt beliefs and attitudes consistent with the narrative. In other words, a well-told personal story can slip past our mental defenses. Being "transported" by a story often feels like living the events alongside the narrator, which makes the narrative's lessons or values feel personally relevant.
First-Person Creates Identification
This immersive quality is especially strong with first-person accounts: telling a story from the "I" perspective helps the audience identify with the storyteller and creates a sense of immediacy. We momentarily see through your eyes, not as an abstract other but as someone we understand and care about. The first-person voice transforms the listener from observer to participant - they're not hearing about something that happened to a stranger, they're experiencing it alongside you.
Attitude Changes Are Strong and Durable
Studies show that transported individuals not only absorb the story's message more readily, but the resulting attitude shifts can be strong and resistant to later counter-persuasion. This is why stories outperform facts and arguments for lasting change - the beliefs formed through narrative transportation become integrated into the listener's worldview rather than sitting as isolated data points that can be argued away.
Stories Plant Seeds That Facts Cannot
First-person narratives change minds by engaging hearts. A simple personal anecdote about an encounter with immigration agents or a moment of community solidarity can plant seeds of understanding that no list of facts could achieve on its own. The story creates an emotional and experiential reference point that the listener carries with them, shaping how they interpret future information about the issue.
Oral History and Interview Techniques
Research on how interviews and collaborative storytelling help people share their experiences - from oral history methodology to StoryCorps techniques
Storytelling as Collaborative Exchange
Oral history is a collaborative exchange where the interviewer and narrator are partners in capturing the story. The principle of "shared historical authority" means that narrators should be thought of as partners, not subjects. The relationship is grounded in trust, respect, and shared decision-making. The narrator's voice stays central - the interviewer helps draw it out without imposing their own interpretation.
Creating Space for Full Recall
A good interviewer creates a situation where the storyteller can reflect widely, recall fully, and associate freely on the subject. Attentive listening and follow-up questions help pull out details the narrator might not find on their own. The interviewer's knowledge and preparation can jog the narrator's memory - names, dates, places that prompt "oh, I forgot about that."
Personal Experience vs. Facts
Research showing that personal experiences are more respected and persuasive than facts in political conversations - and why firsthand testimony carries unique authority
Personal Experiences Earn More Respect Than Facts
A major study published in PNAS found that political opponents respect moral beliefs more when they're supported by personal experiences, not facts. Across 15 studies, researchers found that people who based their stance on personal experiences were treated as more rational, respected more, and others were more willing to interact with them - compared to people who cited facts. As researcher Kurt Gray explains: "Facts aren't true in the same way that personal experiences are true." Facts can be countered with other facts, but lived truth is harder to dismiss.
Stories Feel Less Confrontational
A personal narrative is perceived as less confrontational than citing facts or making general arguments. You're starting from your own perspective rather than trying to draw conclusions or recall specific facts where you risk being called wrong. This makes the listener less defensive and more open to hearing what you have to say.
Most Political Conversations Are With Family
Research from Columbia Business School found that most political debates occur among family and friends rather than with strangers on social media. And contrary to what we imagine, many of these conversations end in positive feelings rather than negative ones. We overestimate how bad these conversations will be, especially compared to online debates.
Story Structure
How to structure a personal narrative for maximum impact - Marshall Ganz's Public Narrative framework and related techniques
Story of Us: Shared Values and Identity
Next, you widen the lens to our story - the shared values, experiences, and aspirations of the community or group you're speaking to. Here you articulate what connects you and your listeners. The "us" can be broad (Americans, parents, neighbors) or specific (your church, your activist group), but the narrative should evoke a sense of unity and common purpose. Like a Story of Self, a Story of Us often uses a key example or episode, but in this case the protagonist is the community. For instance: "Our neighborhood pulled together when ICE agents came last year - families opened their doors to those in need. That's who we are: a community that looks out for each other." In telling a Story of Us, you might highlight a collective challenge overcome or a triumph that exemplifies your group's strengths and values. This builds pride and solidarity. It says, "We have these values in common, and we've proven we can act on them together." Importantly, it can also acknowledge shared pain or struggle, balanced with hope: Ganz notes that lifting up stories of past successes, even small ones, gives people hope that change is possible.
Sources:
The Choice Point: Heart of the Story
The heart of a compelling story is a "choice point" - a moment when you faced a challenge, made a crucial choice, and experienced an outcome that taught you something. This reveals your values through action, not declaration. Instead of saying "I believe in fairness," you show a moment where you had to choose fairness even when it was hard. The choice point creates narrative tension and resolution, and it demonstrates authenticity - you're not claiming abstract virtues, you're showing how you lived them.
Trauma-Informed Storytelling
Ethical principles for sharing difficult experiences - ensuring storytelling does no harm to yourself, your subjects, or your audience
Consent and Agency
Always obtain informed consent from anyone whose story or image you share, and be clear about how the story will be used. This goes beyond a form or a quick "OK." It means having a conversation with the person (or with yourself, if it's your story) about comfort levels and boundaries. For example, if you're telling a family member's story, do they agree with how you're portraying it? Do you feel fully willing to share your own experience in a public or group setting? Honor a storyteller's right to say "no" or "let's leave that part out." Consent is not a one-time box to check, but an ongoing permission - people should have the freedom to withdraw or edit their story even after initially agreeing. By ensuring the storyteller (yourself or others) has control and ownership, you build the trust necessary for authentic storytelling.
Respect Boundaries - No Pressure
Ethical storytelling requires creating a safe environment. Never pressure someone to disclose more than they want to. If you're facilitating a story circle or interview, explicitly state that passing is okay and that individuals should only share what they are ready to share. Likewise, don't pry for shocking details to make the story more dramatic. This includes being mindful of details that could jeopardize someone's safety (for instance, protecting identities in stories of undocumented immigrants or abuse survivors). As a storyteller, you can set your own boundaries too. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I'm going to share an experience, but I'd rather not discuss [specific detail]." Authentic stories do not require every personal detail be exposed. They require the meaningful details that serve the story's purpose. Always err on the side of compassion over curiosity.
Sources:
Emphasize Strengths, Not Just Wounds
Ethical storytelling, especially about trauma or injustice, does not mean avoiding the painful parts - but it does mean framing them responsibly. Whenever possible, center the storyteller's resilience and growth, not just their victimhood. For example, rather than only recounting how a community was terrorized by ICE raids, include how the community responded, helped one another, or how the experience changed the narrator's outlook and resolve. This balanced approach prevents the "deficit narrative" trap (where stories inadvertently reinforce stigma or pity). It also tends to be more inspiring: audiences are moved by narratives of overcoming and solidarity. That said, don't force an artificially happy ending; authenticity is paramount. If the wound is still raw and no silver lining is available, honesty itself can be powerful - but perhaps focus on the value demonstrated (courage, love, unity) in enduring the struggle, rather than depicting people as helpless objects of pity. Always ask: Does my story restore dignity to those involved, or could it inadvertently strip it away? Strive to honor the courage and integrity of the people in your story (including yourself).
Verbal Rehearsal
Research on why speaking before writing helps - bypassing the internal editor, generating ideas through speech, and the cognitive benefits of talking through your story first
Bypassing the Internal Editor
When we write, we self-edit. We worry about grammar, sentence structure, and how we sound. This "internal editor" can block our deepest truths from surfacing. Speaking engages a different part of the brain - it's faster and more fluid. When you speak, you often bypass that internal filter, allowing for a true stream of consciousness. The words come out before you can judge them.
Speech Generates Thought
German writer Heinrich von Kleist observed that if we can't discover something just by thinking about it, we might discover it in the process of free speech. We often hold only the abstract beginning of a thought, but active speech helps turn that obscure thought into a whole idea. It's not that thought produces speech - rather, speech is a creative process that generates thought. Speaking out loud can reveal ideas you didn't know you had.
Talking to Someone Helps
Simply talking through your ideas with someone, regardless of their knowledge of the subject, can help you gather your thoughts. Pay special attention to questions the listener asks - these can help you determine the information you might need to include for a reader. The listener doesn't need to give advice; their presence and questions naturally help you find what's important.
Writing Advice
Synthesized guidance for writing your story - actionable tips derived from storytelling research
Be Specific and Sensory
"Blue jackets with bold yellow letters" is more vivid than "some officers." "My hands were shaking so much I almost dropped my phone" is more vivid than "I was scared." You don't need flowery language - just a few specific details that let the reader picture the scene. These details signal authenticity and make your story stick in memory.
Show How You Felt
Let the reader in on your inner experience. Name your emotions: "I was furious," "I felt my stomach drop," "I couldn't sleep that night." This vulnerability is what creates empathy - it's hard for someone to dismiss your viewpoint when they've felt what you felt. You don't need to be melodramatic, just honest.
Simple Words Work Better
Never use a long word where a short one will do. "I saw" is better than "I witnessed." "It scared me" is better than "I was filled with fear." Research consistently shows that plain language is more comprehensible, more credible, and more persuasive than formal or technical writing. Readers actually trust simple writing more - it signals you're being direct rather than hiding behind fancy words.
Write Like You Talk
If you can say it to a friend, you can write it. Read your writing out loud - if it sounds stilted or formal, rewrite it until it sounds like something you'd actually say. Use contractions. Start sentences with "and" or "but" if that's how you'd say it. The goal is to sound like an actual human being, not a term paper. Conversational writing builds trust because readers feel like they're hearing from a real person.