562234
NLFXXX10.1177/1095796014562234New Labor ForumNicholls and Fiorito
research-article2014
Immigration Reform vs. Economic Stagnation
Dreamers Unbound: Immigrant
Youth Mobilizing
New Labor Forum
1–7
Copyright © 2014, The Murphy Institute,
City University of New York
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1095796014562234
nlf.sagepub.com
Walter J. Nicholls1 and Tara Fiorito1
Keywords
community organizations, immigrant workers, undocumented youth, dreamers, social movements
One of the most important social movements in
the United States is the undocumented youth
movement (Dreamers). The movement has not
been successful in passing the federal
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors (DREAM) Act. It has, however, worked
closely with its allies to rack up an impressive
string of local and state-level victories and pressured the Obama administration to pass Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012.
This latter measure provided approximately
553,000 undocumented youths with temporary
relief (two years) from deportation.1 DACA was
an important victory in its own right, but it also
provided the legal and political precedent for the
broader immigrant rights movement to push for
a similar measure to cover all undocumented
immigrants residing in the country (“DACA for
all”). The Dreamers also helped politicize large
segments of the undocumented youth population
while inspiring thousands of older immigrants to
take a more assertive and contentious stance in
asserting their rights to stay in the country.
Youths and adults now undertake high-risk civil
disobedience actions including chaining themselves to the White House, blocking deportation
buses, occupying offices of national politicians,
and engaging in hunger strikes, among other
things. The importance of the Dreamers should
therefore be understood broadly: they have
achieved gains for undocumented youths, and
they have unleashed political and legal dynamics
that stand to alter the status of the broader undocumented population. Such dynamics contributed
to an executive order introduced by President
Obama on November 17, 2014 to provide temporary residency to an expected four to five million immigrants with tenuous legal status.
This article highlights contrasting moments in
the movement’s development. The first reflects a
strategy of the “bounded Dreamer,” aimed to
construct political messages that stressed the
“deservingness” of this specific population and
an organizational infrastructure that instilled disparate youths with discipline when making arguments in the public sphere. The second reflects
the strategy of the “unbounded Dreamer,”
enabling the incorporation of youth activists into
other mobilizations and struggles, especially the
anti-deportation campaigns of recent years (20112014). The Dreamers in this latter instance are
less bound to the tight framing categories of the
earlier strategy, feel freer to express broader and
more contentious arguments, and make much
more use of informal organizations and social
media to organize their political work. This article identifies these two strategic moments and
assesses the factors that helped the transition
from the former to the latter.2
The Bounded Dreamer
The “bounded Dreamer” reflects a strategy developed by large, nationally based advocacy organizations and their political allies during the 2000s.
The strategy aimed to create a tight discursive
1
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Walter J. Nicholls, walternicholls@gmail.com
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
2
New Labor Forum
frame and organizational structure to produce a
sympathetic voice for this population.
The period spanning the late 1990s and early
2000s was a particularly difficult time for undocumented immigrants.3 Anti-immigrant sentiments were high during the 1990s, and the
Clinton administration responded by ramping up
border security with Operation Gatekeeper in
1993; restricting welfare entitlements with the
Personal Responsibility Act (1996); and strengthening employer sanctions, lowering the threshold
for deportable offenses, and expediting deportation procedures with the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.4 The
legal climate worsened after September 11, 2001.
In addition to passing five restrictive laws, the
Department of Homeland Security introduced
twelve different measures to strengthen borders
and facilitate the detection and deportation of
undocumented immigrants.5 These measures
helped accelerate deportation rates from 200,000
immigrants per year in the mid-2000s to 400,000
by the end of the decade.
[The Dreamers movement has]
worked closely with its allies to rack
up an impressive string of local and
state-level victories.
The effort to legalize the status of undocumented youths arose in this particularly inhospitable context. The National Immigration Law
Center (NILC) worked with congressional allies
to draft a piece of legislation that targeted this
exceptionally “deserving” subgroup of undocumented immigrants. The DREAM Act was introduced in 2001. Subsequent efforts to pass the bill
never succeeded to win a full congressional vote.
DREAM Act advocates (NILC, Center for
Community Change, and congressional allies,
among others) orchestrated a campaign to win
broad support for the measure. Leading advocates
worked to create a strategy that would clearly
communicate the unique challenges facing this
group to a public that was generally quite hostile
to undocumented immigrants. They believed
gaining support in a hostile and uncertain context
required a disciplined, tight, and maximally sympathetic messaging campaign. A former United
We Dream leader stressed, “You have to say these
things because we are trying to reach people in
Iowa, Missouri, Utah, and North Carolina. If you
want to reach these people, you have to stick close
to the talking points because they work really well
with people in these places.”6
[Early DREAM Act advocates]
believed gaining support in a hostile
and uncertain context required a
disciplined, tight, and maximally
sympathetic messaging campaign.
The framing strategy rested on an effort to
cleanse the youths of the stigmas attributed to
them while simultaneously stressing the attributes that made this group exceptionally deserving of the right to stay in the country. One
former youth activist remarked, “We’re basically debunking all the stereotypes, promoting
ourselves as people with good character—to
counter all the bad stereotypes of immigrants.”7
The strategy rested on three basic frames or
messages8: First, the leading advocacy organizations stressed the conformity of youths with
national cultures and values. Reflecting this
frame, a former activist with United We Dream
argued, “Maybe our parents feel like immigrants, but we feel like Americans because we
have been raised here on American values.”9
They maintained the youths were full Americans
in everything except their social security numbers. Second, the youths were portrayed as the
“best and the brightest” who stood to make an
important economic contribution to the country.
The image of the straight-A immigrant student
also rebutted the stereotype of immigrant youths
as delinquent. Last, advocates sought to assert
the innocence of the youths and exonerate them
of their “illegality” by stressing their status was
“no fault of their own.” The framing strategy
outlined who the Dreamers were and drew the
symbolic boundaries that distinguished them
from others in the broader immigrant population. It asserted that the attributes (cultural
assimilation, economic contribution, innocence)
shared by these youths made them exceptionally deserving of a right to stay in the country.
There was an important organizational component to the strategy. The lead advocates
believed an organizational infrastructure was
needed to train youths to employ and disseminate the frames in a clear and consistent way.
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
3
Nicholls and Fiorito
NILC helped form the national organization
United We Dream in 2007. It became a site
where national rights associations worked with
youths to produce the core messages of the
campaign. Working alongside United We
Dream, large regional-level immigrant rights
organizations (Los Angeles, Chicago, New
York) helped create their own organizations for
undocumented youths. The Center for Humane
Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
was particularly effective in this respect and
organized a statewide network made up of campus-based support groups for undocumented
students (the California Dream Network). By
providing intensive training in communications
and storytelling, this top–down organizational
infrastructure was decisive in recruiting youths
and training them to campaign and make their
public arguments in similar ways.
Whereas framing helped mark the symbolic
boundaries of the Dreamers, the organizational
strategy helped connect disparate youths to one
another and provide them with a common way
to talk, think, and feel about their position in the
United States. The organizations, in other words,
helped transform disparate undocumented
youths into the group of the Dreamers, a group
bound by social, organizational, emotional, and
discursive ties. The strategy helped create a
bounded Dreamer: a group with bright lines distinguishing it from other immigrant groups and
a group with unique and exceptional attributes.
The strategy of the “bounded Dreamer” was
politically effective. By 2010, a majority of
Americans (54 percent) supported legal status for
Dreamers, while half (50 percent) continued to
favor decreasing the number of all immigrants in
the country.10 Americans were not signaling an
end to restrictions for all immigrants but only
those with the attributes (assimilated, economic
contributors, innocent) associated with Dreamers.
Immigrants who failed to possess such attributes
were still considered to be problem populations,
which made them targets of repression and exclusion rather than exoneration.
Boundary Breaking
The original strategy was successful in winning
support, but the sharp discursive boundaries
and the top–down organizational structure
introduced conflicts within this campaign that
would ultimately spell its undoing.
Many undocumented youths felt
estranged by the tight and bounded
representation of the Dreamers.
The group was differentiated from other
immigrants on the basis of its deservingness. The
strategy helped reinforce a cleavage between
good (deserving) and bad (undeserving) immigrants rather than criticize and deconstruct it.
This raised alarm bells among some of the more
critical activists (both youths and older immigrant activists). Many undocumented youths
also felt estranged by the tight and bounded representation of the Dreamers. For example, one
Dreamer we interviewed stressed he did not have
the luxury to express his pride for Mexico
because he was undocumented. He explained
that if he showed his Mexican side too much, he
would never be considered an American or a
“real Dreamer.” Other youths felt that the
Dreamers did not relate to their experiences:
I really didn’t care about school at some
point, because it was hard, it was draining.
So I actually just barely ended up
graduating high school. I know most
Dreamers have the story of, “I was the
school valedictorian, like I was the top of
my class.” But for me it was really tough to
concentrate right and to put that effort into
school when all that stuff was happening.11
Many students had great difficulty finishing
high school because of high poverty rates
(approximately 30 percent lived below the poverty line12) and the common belief that their
unauthorized status made completing high
school futile for advancing opportunities.13 The
gap between what was said about this group and
the lived realities of actual working class, innercity youths without legal authorization helped
create feelings of distance and sometimes resentment with the bounded image of the Dreamer.
While tensions surfaced about the public
image of the Dreamer, youth activists also
began to criticize the top–down way of
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
4
New Labor Forum
organizing the youths. This critique overlapped
with frustrations concerning the strategy of the
leading advocacy organizations. National advocacy organizations (Center for Community
Change, National Council of La Raza, NILC,
Center for American Progress) in 2009 and
2010 believed an opportunity existed to resuscitate the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act (CIRA). Many youths and some of their
allies saw no opportunities for such a reform on
the horizon. Lacking a realistic opening, the
youths believed the movement should shift the
goal and support the more achievable DREAM
Act. The leading advocacy organizations balked
and continued to push for comprehensive
reform.
This sparked an effort by dissident Dreamers
in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New
York, Phoenix, and other cities to start their own
campaign to pass the DREAM Act. The youths
believed it was time to embrace aggressive,
public, and confrontational tactics. Their first
major action, on May 17, 2010, was the occupation of Senator John McCain’s office in Arizona
by four undocumented students. This was followed by a string of occupations, hunger strikes,
long marches, and other forms of direct action.
They moved away from privileging large and
peaceful demonstrations saturated with
American flags and began to embrace more targeted, smaller, and confrontational forms of
direct action (with fewer flags). The aim now
was to find pressure points and cracks in the
system, target them with incessant direct action,
and hope to pry these cracks open into real
political opportunities for broader policy
reforms. The youths also introduced new frames
that stressed “coming out” in public (sponsoring
“coming out of the shadows” events), their lack
of fear (“undocumented and unafraid”), and
their multiple identities (“undocuqueers”). The
campaign resulted in the passage of the DREAM
Act in the House of Representatives, but it ultimately failed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster in December 2010.
The rebellion by undocumented youth activists was directed at the discursive and organizational underpinnings of the previous strategy.
One leading youth activist explicitly criticized
the sharp symbolic boundaries created around
the public figure of the Dreamer: “It’s taken a
whole decade to build a movement that is not
hinged on the non-profit industrial complex
framing our stories in ways that are damaging
and containing our migrant bodies in neat boxes
with pretty labels.”14 Another group of leading
youth activists from Los Angeles criticized the
power dynamics of the top–down organizational structure “because if we accept and
embrace the current undocumented student
movement, it means the social justice elite loses
its power—its power to influence politicians,
media, and the public debate. The power is
taken back by its rightful holders.”15
The Unbounded Dreamer
Whereas the “bounded Dreamer” emphasized
the narrow boundaries that distinguished youths
from others in the immigrant population, the
“unbounded Dreamer” blurred these lines and
stressed broader identities, ties, and goals. Many
Dreamers are as politically active as ever but are
no longer bound within the categorical and organizational limits of the past. This fluidity allows
them to cut across movements (undocumented
immigrants, labor, community, LGBTQ, and so
on), develop new alliances, and play vibrant
roles in a variety of social justice campaigns.
From 2011 onward, Dreamers have become the
most active and aggressive elements of the
undocumented immigrant rights movement.
What explains this departure from Dreamspecific organizing? This departure stems from
innovative moves by leading dissident Dreamers
and relations with other organizations in their
broader activist networks. First, youth activists
from the National Immigrant Youth Alliance
(NIYA), who helped lead the rebellion against
the advocacy organizations in 2010, embraced a
campaign to protest state-level anti-immigration measures and push back on the Obama
administration’s deportation policies, whereas
the leading immigrant rights organizations continued to target Republican lawmakers in
Congress. In November 2011, NIYA initiated a
“Week of Action” targeting Alabama’s antiimmigration law, which resulted in the arrest of
fifteen protesters (youths and older immigrants).
This campaign made NIYA a central player in
the Dreamers movement, reinforced the use of
direct action tactics, and made government
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
5
Nicholls and Fiorito
restrictions and deportations a central focus of
new campaigns.
Second, the National Day Laborer Organizing
Network (NDLON), the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the
Downtown Labor Center at the University of
California–Los Angeles all played crucial roles in
supporting the dissident Dreamers during 2010.
The Labor Center had long established itself as
major source of support for Dreamers in Los
Angeles, and its director, Kent Wong, worked
hard to connect youth activists to the leadership of
the AFL-CIO and leading voices of the civil rights
movement. He also worked closely with Dreamers
to place activists in internships in a variety of
social justice organizations throughout the country. NDLON also played a crucial role. Soon after
2010, it launched a campaign to fight the Obama
administration’s central tool for detecting and
deporting undocumented immigrants: Secure
Communities. Secure Communities required state
and local police to cross-check fingerprints of
arrestees against Homeland Security’s databases.
For those flagged for possible immigration violations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agents could request local enforcement officials to
hold the person for federal immigration agents.
Dreamers from Los Angeles were encouraged to
participate in the coalition against Secure
Communities. The Dreamers were happy to do so
because they believed in the cause. They also felt
an obligation to demonstrate they were not “selfish” youths only interested in legalizing their particular status.
We know that we are part of communities
and families and we will have to ask for
their solidarity. We also know that we
have been supporting our communities
with anti-S-Com [Secure Communities]
work and that we have put a lot of our
time and energy into that. In response to
these critiques, we should mention our
involvement in these actions and should
respond to the selfishness argument by
claiming that we’re doing anything that
pushes the pro-immigrant agenda.16
In addition to encouraging Dreamers to partake in this and other coalitions, NDLON went
on to hire Dreamers as lead organizers in several
anti-enforcement and deportation campaigns
unfolding in California and the country. Thus,
these organizations provided Dreamers with a
structured path to move beyond the boundaries
of the past in politically satisfying ways.
Some Dreamers became organizers in organizations like NDLON, but many also created and
sustained their own autonomous organizations.
United We Dream remained powerful within the
general movement and has gone on to assert its
independence within it. In addition to the
national organization, there was a rapid proliferation of new alliances, smaller organizations,
and informal groups that reflected the varied
ideological and strategic preferences of youth
activists. These other political collectivities have
been held together through personal and social
media networks. These networks are used to
build a sense of groupness and commitment
among the activists, and they permit the flow of
information, ideas, discourses, and repertoires
between them. For example, in the Los Angeles
region, smaller groups have proliferated throughout the metropolitan region. Dream Team Los
Angeles and the Orange County Dream Team
initiated a first round of organizational splits in
2011, breaking away from the California Dream
Network. These Dream Teams quickly encouraged other dissident youths to create their own
Dream Teams and construct a statewide network.
Soon thereafter, strategic and ideological disagreements triggered activists to break from
their association with the Dream Teams and start
their own groups. The process encouraged
youths to create relatively small and plural
groups that remained largely informal. They
have used whatever resources at their disposal,
relied almost exclusively on voluntary labor, and
met in whatever spaces available to them. In
spite of tensions, disagreements, and splits, most
youth activists have retained working relations
with their comrades and have been quick to
show high levels of solidarity for pivotal actions.
Social media and new communications technologies (e.g., Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit,
Instagram, Live Streaming) have also provided
powerful vehicles to stay constantly connected
to others. They can talk to distant comrades on a
daily basis, diffuse messages and mobilization
frames, launch massive media campaigns, and
disseminate powerful videos and images at
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
6
New Labor Forum
almost no cost. For example, in an ongoing study
of Twitter activities associated with the Not One
More campaign, we are finding that a number of
activists with no connections to offline groups
have become very active on Twitter.17 They create their own tweets using pre-existing hashtags,
redirect messages to strategic targets (politicians,
adversaries), and re-tweet messages to their own
network of followers. The fractured and permeable world of social media provides these youths
with ample opportunities to join the movement
and assume important roles within it.18 Thus,
whereas once a handful of formal and hierarchical organizations dominated this social movement space, now there are smaller organizations,
groups, alliances, and networks being created by
the day.
The fractured and permeable world
of social media provides youths with
ample opportunities to join the
movement and assume important
roles within it.
As Dreamers have become more drawn into
anti-deportation and enforcement campaigns,
their public frames shifted from stressing the
attributes that made youths uniquely deserving of
legality to frames stressing why all undocumented immigrants deserved a right to reside in
the country. In our New York Times database on
immigration policies and protests, 24 independent statements (out of 292 statements) can be
attributed to Dreamers in 2014. Of these statements, only one mentions the exceptional qualities of undocumented youths, and this statement
was made in response to Republican threats to
retract DACA. All other statements reflected the
general push to pressure the Obama administration to extend administrative relief to the general
undocumented population. The following statement reflects a framing strategy that has become
indistinguishable from other anti-deportation
activists: “The president’s latest broken promise
is another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community.”19 Full-time activists have
moved beyond Dream-specific frames and only
deploy them when political adversaries have
threatened the group.
Public frames shifted from stressing
the attributes that made youths
uniquely deserving to stressing
why all undocumented immigrants
deserved a right to reside in the
country.
The Dreamers are more active than ever, but
they are no longer bound to Dreamer discourses
or particular organizational structures. Selfidentified Dreamers have become extremely
influential in recent anti-deportation campaigns,
as volunteer participants, coalition partners, and
paid organizers. They have gone on to become a
major force in the campaign (Not One More) to
extend DACA to all undocumented immigrants.
We are finding that United We Dream is a major
coalition partner, the lead organizers are
Dreamers, and that Dreamers from across the
country have been most active online and
offline.20 In terms of Twitter activities using the
#not1more hashtag, Dream-associated organizations have, by far, been the most active participants in the campaign.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Roberto G. Gonzales and Angie M. BautistaChavez, “Two Years and Counting: Assessing
the Growing Power of DACA” (special report,
American Immigration Council, Washington,
DC, 2014).
2. The article stems from an earlier project on the
undocumented youth movement. This research
drew upon semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and a newspaper claims
analysis. More research on recent developments
is grounded in an extensive claims analysis of
the New York Times (2000-2014 using the keywords “immigration policy” and “immigration
protest”). This has yielded a database of more than
three thousand statements by different stakeholders
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015
7
Nicholls and Fiorito
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
on a range of issues concerning immigrant politics. The research is also informed by an ongoing
analysis of a recent anti-deportation campaign
(Not 1 More, 2013-2014) and Twitter feeds associated with it. These news and Twitter sources
have been combined with additional conversations with key activists (Dreamers and others).
Douglas S. Massey and Karen A. Pren,
“Unintended Consequences of U.S. Immigration
Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from
Latin America,” Population and Development
Review 38 (2012): 1-29.
Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics
of Immigration Control in America (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2002), 5.
Massey and Pren, “Unintended Consequences,”
10-11.
Elias, former United We Dream, personal interview, June 2011.
Herman, Dream Team Los Angeles, personal
interview, June 2011.
Walter Nicholls, The DREAMers: How the
Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed
the Immigration Rights Debate (Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press, 2013).
Julia Preston, “Illegal Immigrant Students
Publicly Take up a Cause,” New York Times,
December 10, 2009, available at http://www.
nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/11student.html.
Jeffrey Jones, “Slim Majority of Americans Would
Vote for DREAM Act Law,” December 10, 2010,
available at www.gallup.com/poll/145136/slimmajority-americans-vote-dream-act-law.aspx.
Monica, Dream Team Los Angeles, personal
interview, June 2011.
Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “A Portrait
of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United
States” (Pew Hispanic Center report, 2009),
available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/
reports/107.pdf.
Leisy Abrego and Roberto Gonzales, “Blocked
Paths, Uncertain Futures: The Postsecondary
Education and Labor Market Prospects of
Undocumented Latino Youth,” Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk 15, no. 1-2
(2010): 144-57; Roberto Gonzales, “Learning to
Be Illegal: Undocumented Youth and Shifting
Legal Contexts in the Transition to Adulthood,”
American Sociological Review 76, no. 4 (2011):
602-19; Stephanie Potochnick, “How States Can
Reduce the Dropout Rate for Undocumented
Immigrant Youth: The Effects of In-State Resident
Tuition Policies,” Social Science Research 45
(2014): 18-32; Veronica Terriquez, “Dreams
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Delayed: Barriers to Degree Completion among
Undocumented Community College Students,”
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, published electronically October 30, 2014, doi:10.10
80/1369183X.2014.968534.
DREAM Deployed Blog, http://DREAM
deployed.blogspot.com/2010/10/insults-asideissues-emerge.html.
Jonathon Perez, Jorge Guitierrez, Nancy Meza,
and Neidi Dominguez Zamorano, “DREAM
Movement: Challenges with the Social Justice
Elite’s Military Option Arguments and the
Immigration Reform ‘Leaders,’” September
20, 2010, available at http://archive.truthout.
org/dream-movement-challenges-with-socialjustice-elites-military-option-arguments-andimmigration-refo.
Noemi, Dream Team Los Angeles, field notes,
September 22, 2011.
Sander Van Haperen, Walter Nicholls, and
Justus Uitermark, “Diffusing Protest on
Twitter: The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of
a Contentious Social Movement Network”
(working paper, Department of Sociology,
University of Amsterdam, 2014).
Ruth Milkman, “Millennial Movements:
Occupy Wall Street and the Dreamers,” Dissent,
Summer 2014, available at www.dissentmagazine.org/article/millennial-movements-occupywall-street-and-the-dreamers.
Michael D. Shear, “Obama Delays Immigration
Action, Yielding to Democratic Concerns,”
New York Times, September 6, 2014, available
at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/obama-said-to-delay-executive-action-onimmigration.html.
Van Haperen, Nicholls, and Uitermark,
“Diffusing Protest on Twitter.”
Author Biographies
Walter J. Nicholls teaches sociology at the
University of Amsterdam. He has performed extensive research on immigrant rights movements in the
United States, France, and the Netherlands. His latest
book is The DREAMers: How the Undocumented
Youth Movement Transformed the Immigrant Rights
Debate (Stanford University Press, 2013).
Tara Fiorito received a research master’s in social
sciences from the University of Amsterdam. She currently teaches and researches at the University of
Amsterdam. She is co-director of “Undocumented
and Unafraid,” a new documentary film on the
Dreamer movement.
Downloaded from nlf.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on February 25, 2015