CAN NARRATIVE INQUIRY ACCOUNT FOR THE POLITICAL IMPASSE OF IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM? BRINGING TOGETHER THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK AND THE NARRATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS TO EXPLORE THE DREAM ACT LEGISLATION

For more than two decades Congress has failed to pass the DREAM Act, a legislation intended to secure a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth brought to the United States as children. Within the broader U.S. immigration domain, the case of the DREAMers (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) is particularly apt for exploring the dynamics of the policymaking process. Bringing together the theoretical framework of the Multiple Streams (MSF) and the methodology of the Narrative Policy Analysis (NPA) this research illuminates how narrative construction affects policy action. This dissertation integrates the two frameworks through collection and analysis of opposing policy narratives of legislators and other stakeholders involved in immigration policy debates over a twelve-year period.
To advance this research objective, this study sought to understand how problem framing affects policy making, how competing policy coalitions construct policy narratives regarding immigration, and how immigration policy narratives affect the enactment of legislation. In addition, extending the critical examination of the narratives of opposing coalitions illuminates how political and professional elites use language to reinforce existing power structures and advance divergent views of immigration.