Hello everyone,
First of all I like to wish our Professors a very
Happy Mother’s day.
To all of you, thanks so much for such a great class,
everyone was wonderful, with so much to contribute to the topic. I was so glad so
what an ardent topic this is and that everyone fells as passionate as I do and
that you all had so much to say about it.
The topic of immigration is one that provokes many
heated debates and one that will probably not be resolved any time soon. The
reality is that immigration affects us all, whether we ourselves are immigrants
or our families migrated to the United States or because we find that in some economic
or social aspect, immigration affects our lives and our society. The question
in reality is, how does the government
deal with the issue of immigration and how can it be done in a more humane,
civilized and non-discriminatory manner? I do not know that this question
can be answered or if the solution is evident and if we can get there.
As we began our class I asked everyone to give their
definition of an “illegal immigrant.” The interesting thing, (not really
surprising), was that almost each one of us said an “illegal immigrant” is a
Hispanic/Latino, probably a criminal, who crosses the border (Mexican border,
obviously). We all agreed that most people do not consider those who overstay
their visas as “illegal”, nor do most people consider immigrants from other,
non-Latino nations, as “illegal.” My question then is: Is the immigration issue really about the economic hardship that
immigration, (legal or otherwise), inflicts on our nation and our citizens?
Given the New York Times article, Professor Stein
read for us and the views of some “highly educated” individuals regarding
Hispanics and our IQ’s: Do we seriously
believe there can be any real change to the immigration policies and the way
immigration laws are enforced?
My last point, which is the reason I chose this
topic, is the criminalization of immigrants and the inhumane manner in which
immigrants,(legal or unauthorized) are treated, detained, imprisoned and
punished for offenses that are not categorized are ‘criminal offenses.” In the
Parenti reading we learned about many instances in which laws were bent and
even broken in an effort to crack down on immigration and to prevent, “illegal
immigration” and the crimes provoked by said immigration practices. What I do
not understand is how we justify breaking the law and circumvent around the
civil rights, imparted by our Constitution, in order to justify certain illegal
actions perpetrated by many governmental offices and officials. To this point I
do not really have one particular question but rather I would like to hear what
your opinions or views are on the following: the retroactivity of the 1996 immigration reform, IIRIRA, the
deportation of legal residents as well as US citizens for previous crimes
already convicted, sentenced and punished for, the Double Jeopardy clause of our Constitution and also the manner in
which many immigrants are held without hearings and deported without the right
to contest deportation. What are your views on the US government willingness to
circumvent so many or legal rights and violate human rights to protect national
security and control immigration.
12 comments:
Minerva,
Happy mothers day! To you and our marvelous professors! And thanks for such an amazing class. It was a topic I am very much invested in and care about - and I can imagine it was evident in almost everything I said. It is heated, very heated, and complex, but a conversation we need to have.
To your first question, I don't think the issue is really about economics. For me, when we even talk about economics, it seems to be the superficial conversation we have. Senator Elizabeth Warren just highlighted an obvious truth - she said "why can't students borrow money at the same interest rate as banks?" When speaking logistics, basic arithmetic is ignored when it comes to economics. When we look at immigration, there are dozens of problems with economics. First, there is a large pool of unclaimed money from undocumented immigrants because they cannot claim it and it sits there, doing nothing productive. Furthermore, revenue from undocumented migrants is high given that they receive no tax returns, have to pay for the majority of medical services, and can't actually receive several free social services. As we discussed, employers often time are on the winning end of hiring undocumented workers, and abuses often times go unchallenged. Politicians are never sincere in their discussion of economics and immigration (for the most part) and if they do believe what they say, than that is just the price of being blind.
I believe there can be change. Policy, largely, is based on votes. The latino vote will become a force to reckon in the next few decades. And when we do, let the games begin. Politics will be in full swing to win over votes, and the fight will be a heated one. Of course, policy regarding immigration will become sensitive, with any party being extremely careful in how they conduct themselves, and as we saw, Richwine (author of the IQ dissertation) just "resigned" from his position at the heritage foundation. Decades ago, the language he used was tolerable. Now, there are consequences to using such rhetoric. I am not saying that the card of "voter bloc" is the most powerful tool out there, but it is important to remember it has some power. And though much policy in our country is discriminatory, there has been progress, even if it has been a little.
The US is not stranger to be a violator of human rights. Whenever I have this conversation with others, I make it a point to make sure we understand that the US has violated human rights since its inception. Not to say that this isn't true for other countries, but the US prides itself in being the protector of freedom and land of the equal. Clearly, we are not - Abu Ghraib, slavery, mass incarceration - even our words "innocent until proven guilty" are nothing but words. When it comes to immigrants, especially the undocumented, we must hold our government accountable for the abuses it has committed and continues to commit. Though I have no answer, I think it now falls upon us as a community (meaning the entirety of the country) to have a cultural revolution where we see "the other" in a different light.
Happy Mother’s Day, Minerva, and also to the Professors! Thanks for a great class.
I think a large part of this issue, which I believe Nico alluded to at one point in the class, is the dehumanization of immigrants. The rhetoric that is built around “illegal immigration”—from the words we use in the media to the words politicians speak about it to the legal language that shapes our immigration policies—creates a framework for discrimination.
In regards to your initial inquiry in class through a free association, I would say “criminal” was one of the first visceral words that came to my mind. Now, I do not personally believe this to be true, but whether due to media, social, or other outside effects, this is the word that came to mind. Thankfully, after mindful reflection and a consideration of facts, I think I can overpower and challenge such a thought, but I fear the effect that such automatic responses (implicit biases?) can have.
I think the economics argument is solely made to make immigrants into a scapegoat. Echoing Nico, many immigrants contribute to our country’s taxes, social security, etc and receive nothing in return. Again, the rhetoric so often built around this is that “immigrants are stealing our jobs and money.”
I was quite shocked by that NY Times article, and again would refer back to my rhetoric argument (i.e. I can hear it now… “Look, they’re not only taking our money, but also making our country dumber!). Glad to see he resigned, but even if such thoughts aren’t overtly made, they are most certainly latently represented in policies via symbolic racism.
To answer your last question, it’s a travesty. So many dumb things happen in this country under the guise of “protecting national security.” Pulling families apart, detaining people for inordinate amounts of times without due process, and bending policies to fit an agenda of “othering” is not something any country should stand for. And certainly not when the threat to national security is not even a real threat.
Hello Minerva,
I apologize for the delay. Happy Mother’s Day to you and the Professors!!
What an enlightening class we had on Thursday. It was very much needed and we were all given the opportunity to truly evaluate immigration policies and where ideas are rooted from. Thank you, Minerva!
In regards to your first question, I do not believe that the immigration issue is really about economic hardship that immigration inflicts on our nation. Rather, I believe that immigration “issue” is really more about society’s own discrimination against certain individuals who they believe do not “belong” to America or are here illegally. As Joe mentioned, the rhetoric build around “illegal immigration” is what creates the framework for discrimination, to which we develop and base our own biases on and dehumanize them. Referring to Joe’s response again, I agree with him that we often use the economics argument to make immigrants a scapegoat. As Americans, we want answers and we search for them. When there are issues that we are having difficulties solving (i.e. the current economic crisis in our nation), Americans tend to use their own discrimination and “other” a certain group of individuals and blame them for the problems. In this situation, they tend to use immigrants as the scapegoats and place the fault on them. But as Nico mentioned in class, many immigrants do pay our country’s taxes, social security and etc. So what, we must evaluate, is the real reason why we choose them as scapegoats?
In response to your second question, the comment made by Richwine was disgusting and completely unnecessary. He is a scholar from Harvard and for him to make such an ignorant statement is appalling. I too am glad that he resigned. I do believe that there can be change to immigration policies. However, the process would be a slow one and it would have to take the motivation and dedication of a lot of individuals who truly want a change to fight for it. There is still hope.
I think that the United States willingness to circumvent and violate so many human rights to protect national security and control immigration is sickening. As I gave heard many times and as my classmates have said, America is made up of a land of immigrants. What makes the Hispanics and Latinos “more” of immigrants than any others? Again, this roots to society’s own discrimination and our tendency to always “other” certain individuals. Not only are we violating fundamental human rights by criminalizing them consistently, we are also tearing apart families and creating more issues within the criminal justice system. It is our responsibility as a community to take on a different perspective and refocus on coming together as a community, as oppose to pushing individuals out of our nation because we feel they “do not” belong. Once we come together as a community, we will (hopefully) be able to work together and become a stronger nation.
Since you asked about economics, I had to share a fascinating article from today’s NY Times, “San Diego mayor building economic bridges to Tiajuana”. This is an example of how innovative people can exploit-in the best sense of that word-immigration to enhance economic opportunities and change long held biases. I quote:
When he opened San Diego’s Tijuana office this year, Mr. Filner spo ke in grand terms about the future of cross-border relations. “Dos ciudades, pero una region — we are two cities, but one region,” he said, using the phrase popular among those who want more collaboration in the area. San Diego would put in a bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, he said, but only to host jointly with Tijuana.
For years, this coastal city was widely viewed as a hotbed of illegal immigration. Neighbors traded stories of migrants hiding in their garages and hopping through their backyards. But now the region is considered one of the safest parts of the Mexican border, and the number of apprehensions of people crossing illegally is a tiny fraction of what it was a decade ago.
The changes have helped bring an astounding shift in residents’ attitudes toward the border: far from seeing it as a threat, more are embracing it as a potential economic engine for the region. Perhaps one of the most remarkable things about Mr. Filner’s efforts to bolster Tijuana is that there has been no opposition from other politicians or organized protests from conservative critics.
First of all, a heartfelt congratulations to Minerva for winning an ISP graduation award. Many JJ-Verons have been honored this year -- such a pleasurable and proud moment for your teachers!! -- but Minerva, as far as I know, is the only winner to also be raising three kids. An extra tip of the hat there.
I don't have too much to add to the interesting conversation going on this week. But what did strike me was how so many of our issues are coming together: Joe mentioned thinking about implicit bias when responding to Minerva's opening question, the idea about the "question" of the color of the diverse Latino/a community reminded me of Thomas's point about how, over history, various communities fought discrimination by becoming "white" (Irish, Italian). And, of course, all of this discussion about borders, warring tribes and the creation of internal enemies takes me right back to the beginning of the semester and Grendel.
While I love Professor Stein's concluding on a happy note with the Tijuana story, we had lunch with a Vera alum today who is not an American citizen. I was struck by two things in catching up with this terrific student: 1) how much she has accomplished in her studies here in the US and 2) how much more complicated EVERY one of her decisions is by her immigration status. I keep my fingers crossed that politicians find the political will to make it easier for folks like her to thrive here.
Hey all. Hope you had a wonderful mommy's day.
I will go on a rant regarding deportation of immigrants without hearing, which severely prohibits them from fighting the charges brought up against them. It is important to point out that many immigrants come to this country looking for a dollar and a dream. Their conditions back home are beyond destitute, which causes them to aggressively chase stability in this country. However, the dialogue of immigration is the starting point that should be attacked. Think about the way things escalate from basic perception. First we stigmatize immigrants for working more hours at lower wages. This stigmatization turns into "they are taking all of our home jobs and they do not deserve to be here." From there it creates vigilante groups and strict boarder patrol around the clock in order to prevent them in and punish others who try to enter this country. Finally, instead of admitting their failure to secure the boarder and "get rid" of immigrants, government officials take advantage of these individuals and deport them without trials. The whole process from negative perception to the actual action of deportation should be challenged. Obviously, the situation is not this simple but I illustrate this to prove the point that negative perception of any individual or group of individuals can and has already escalated into negative actions that completely 360 turn peoples lives
Hey Minerva, thanks for the wonderful class I hope you and the professors enjoyed Mother’s Day.
I definitely enjoyed Thursday’s class and was excited to evaluate immigration policies. In regards to the first question, I believe Michelle brought up a fair point; there are policies in place right now that discriminates against certain ethnic groups. I believe that Joe is right that rhetoric plays a stoic role in the framework for discrimination.
However, I believe immigration is both an economic issue as well as a social issue, because in times where a large demand for labor was required, immigration was used as a solution. America turned to immigrants, from slaves, to the Chinese workers who helped build the railroad system, to the current situation about Hispanic in the farm industry. I think that their presence unfortunately, as Nico and Joe say stirs the desire to use them as scapegoats to people’s problem.
People use their presence to place the fault onto immigrants regardless of the issue whether or not that actually is the case because they cannot defend for themselves. So I agree with Michelle that an evaluation is needed to determine why we choose them as scapegoats.
In response to your second question, the comment made by Richwine is unfounded and bias. This reminds me of the arguments of the white superior complex where based on race all blacks are inferior in every way. I think the only reason it was given so much attention was his status as a Harvard alumni. However, I do not believe his dissertation or his work will deter the change for immigration policies. At some point Hispanic will become the majority and the individuals who does things like this will have to answer to them.
There are so many congratulations to go around. Minerva, kudos to you on your ISP honor and I also hope you enjoyed a good day on Sunday.
Minerva, I'm afraid the cynic in you comes out in your three questions--and I'm a cynic too. For me, the subtext of your questions may be summed up by another question: what going on around here that we don't know about? I agree with what several people noted in class discussion, and that David raised first: informally authorized immigrants become negative focus (demonized; the scapegoat) at particular times. Our challenge is to look below the surface to figure out what drives the propaganda machine into motion. And there's always paradox. Minerva points out that the negative focus is on "Hispanic" immigrants. At the same time, the Latino market is becoming more and more important to capital--and thus the focus of positive attention at the expense of other racialized ethnic groups.
I'd like to post for you the statement of the American Anthropological Association on the current trend in state immigration laws which I helped draft. I see this as one form of advocacy. It's probably too long for one blog entry, so please bear with what follows....
AA General Statement on Immigration
July 24, 2011
TO: Virginia Dominguez, Leith Mullings and Members of AAA Executive Board
FROM: EB Ad-Hoc Group on Immigration (Hugh Gusterson, Ed Liebow, Vilma Santiago-Irizarry, Jay Schensul, Alisse Waterston)
RE: General Statement
General Statement
American anthropology has a long history of scientific interest in and professional concern for immigrant populations. For example, Franz Boas, the founding father of American anthropology, wrote and spoke extensively on erroneous beliefs, anchored in pseudoscience, that immigrants in the early twentieth century from Southern and Eastern Europe were genetically inferior. A century of anthropological research on immigration and host society responses to immigration shows that immigration tends to be driven by economic deprivation and political persecution, that first generation immigrants are frequently stereotyped in inaccurate and demeaning ways, that scapegoating of immigrants escalates in times of economic contraction (the degree of scapegoating being roughly proportionate to the degree of economic contraction), and that anti-immigrant campaigns tend to be premised on erroneous factual claims and predictions.
Anthropologists have deep accumulated knowledge about the sociocultural dynamics of immigration, as well as our historical obligation to advocate on behalf of immigrant populations who may have limited political visibility and voice. We are concerned by a dangerous trend in state legislation targeting new immigrants to the US, one that is borne out of fear and discrimination, and is at odds with more than a century of research findings on the causes and consequences of immigration. We are also concerned that this legislation targets not only adults but also those who had no control over the fact that they were brought to this country as young children, and who would experience repatriation to their supposed country of origin as forced emigration to a radically strange environment for which they lack the cultural and linguistic skills to thrive.
more....
continued from previous post...
Since April, 2010, five states (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Utah) have passed laws that target undocumented immigrants (often referred to in legislation as “illegal aliens,” a term that is itself demonizing and dehumanizing). Similar legislation is pending in at least 25 additional states. According to the National Conference on State Legislators, during the the first quarter of this year, more than 1700 immigration or immigrant-related bills have been introduced in 50 states and Puerto Rico (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=22529).
Enforcement of these laws is discriminatory, divisive, degrading, and costly (in both financial and human terms). Research by anthropologists and others clearly demonstrates that such laws materialize as a form of scapegoating when times are tough, and outsiders are unfairly blamed as a risk to civil society and for taking jobs and other resources to which they are not entitled. Under distressed conditions, draconian legislation is more likely to be enacted, even though these laws are generally ineffective in addressing the underlying problem and cause suffering for some of the most politically and economically vulnerable members of society. Laws such as those that seek to block access to higher education for immigrant youth will exacerbate the very problems they are supposed to alleviate.
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) condemns this virulent form of anti-immigrant legislation, with its promotion of racial profiling, encroachment on civil rights, and pandering to a political climate of fear and divisiveness. In May, 2010, the AAA’s Executive Board passed a resolution condemning Arizona’s enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 1070, which grants police broad discretion to single out members of a specific ethnic group, and to encroach on established due process rights. Backing this resolution with its pocketbook, the AAA, its Sections, Commissions and Committees will not hold conferences in Arizona until SB 1070 is either repealed or struck down as constitutionally invalid (this declaration does not apply to Indian Reservations within the State of Arizona).
In May, 2011, the Executive Board passed a resolution condemning Georgia’s House Bill 87 for unfairly targeting undocumented immigrants with discriminatory legislation that weakens customary legal prohibitions of police investigations on immigrant status. The AAA, its Sections, Commissions and Committees will not hold any conferences in Georgia until HB 87 is either repealed or struck down as constitutionally invalid.
In keeping with our professional obligation, the Executive Board will continue to monitor closely and avoid investing in states that sponsor laws that:
• give police broad powers and discretion to single out members of a specific ethnic group whether in principle or by practice;
• remove social services from undocumented immigrants;
• ban undocumented immigrants from public schools and colleges, and/or charge discriminatory fees;
• criminalize those who drive or shelter undocumented immigrants; and
• require individual identification cards that indicate immigration status
[note: I drafted this text which then circulated among the group of us on the Executive Board who submitted the statement that was then voted on and became official. You probably recognize my language and analysis!)
Hi, Minerva! First of all, I want to make sure you know that I absolutely LOVE your class last week! Minerva! Minerva! Minerva! Minerva! <3
You have raised a very interesting point in regard to our perception of illegal immigrant. Before I begin, I want to discuss the nature of the term “illegal immigrant.” As a vivid and descriptive adjective term, the word “illegal” carries the implication of negativity and deviancy. Therefore, it is so convenient to assign the word “illegal” to things that we tend to dislike. As you have said in the blog post, Minerva, when speaking of illegal immigrant, it is easier to imagine a person of Latin America descent, probably poor, and is like to be involved in some sort of criminal activity. But then, what about those illegal immigrants who are of European descent and those who hold advanced degree? They should also be considered illegal, according to the sentiment that brands Latin Americans without legal documents as illegal immigrant; but in people’s subconscious thinking they are not the illegal immigrants who are threatening the national sovereignty and economic stability of this country. So if the nature of the discourse on illegal immigrant can be changed drastically basing on the subject’s racial identity and class background, isn’t it suggesting that this is more than an issue of immigration? Perhaps, this is more of an issue about what types of race and social class we want to keep out.
The question of why do the policy makers and law enforcers go out of their way to hunt for illegal immigrants even at the cost of breaking the laws makes a great starting point to reexamine the issue of who does the U.S. criminal justice system choses to target. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, over 45% of undocumented immigrants are overstayers, meaning they came to this country with valid working, tourist, or education visa. Some of these overstayers speak perfect English and can be blended right into American middle class population. So even if the law enforcers, say those in Arizona, are not using one’s racial identity to determine probably cause, though this claim is highly contestable, how could they guarantee a fair and unbiased assessment on, say, a Canadian overstayer and a U.S. citizen of Mexican descents whose spoken English carries strong accent? Whose appearance, in their opinion, would constitute sufficient probable cause for them to launch an inquiry? If I have to make an educated guess, I would say the person of Mexican descent is more like to be investigated than the White Canadian oversteyer. How long could we continue to deny that this issue is as much about immigrant as it is about race and class.
PS: Happy totally late mother’s day to our four extremely loveable and super hot moms in the Vera family!
Although I was a bit late for class, I want to thank Minerva for an amazing class. I cannot believe the Vera Seminar is coming to an end!
To put blunt, the U.S. Government’s handling of immigration policy is shameful. Individuals who are looking to immigrate to the U.S. are stigmatized—unless you can provide some monetary incentive. Most politicians advocate for baseline reforms that do not address immigration on a meaningful level. Almost half the country refers to immigrants without “permission” to be in the U.S. as illegal, which, in turn, contributes to the psychological conditioning of non-white immigrants as “problems.” Unfortunately, even politicians who share some concern for individuals who are seeking status within the U.S., fall vulnerable to legislation that creates merit-based standards. For these few reasons, along with others, immigration policy within the U.S. disheartening. Understanding my philosophical justifications for what a more humane immigration policy would be hinges on some historical perspective. First, the U.S. has played a large role in exploiting natural resources and labor from many countries throughout the world, which, in turn, increases the increased likelihood of third-world status. In addition, our trade policies and influence throughout the world creates barriers for individuals’ ability to provide basic needs from themselves—while Americans simply fulfill their desire for material. With this in mind, I would advocate for amnesty for all individuals within the U.S. and open borders for all individuals. While I realize from a pragmatic perspective that the open borders policy may not be embraced, I hope to challenge the notion of state sovereignty, especially with issues dealing with natural resources. These two reforms, combined with reinvestment in schools and the end of our reliance on capitalism, should usher in a change within the culture that may provide more political coverage for politicians. We should not wait to see whether or not Republicans will make concessions to adopt immigration reform because they fear losing votes!
I am going to merge my answer for the second and third question because there seems to be some overlap. Unfortunately, the main resistance against immigration reform really does depend on the view that increases in the number of immigrants creates economic burdens and takes away jobs. This view on the surface can be understood—even though it may not be true. However, there seems to be a number of underlying issues that encourage this view. For example, many middle-class Americans fear competition and changes in culture that would likely result from potential increases in the number of immigrants. Likewise, the power dynamics could be undermined by changes in ethnic and social makeups throughout the nations. For these reasons, it is easy to espouse the view that immigration could pose a threat to the economy without acknowledging certain underlying reasons. Consequently, I am a bit pessimistic that immigration reform will change, especially in light of the IQ suggestions and merit-based systems. Ironically, politicians believe that they can vote for immigration overhaul drafting legislation that creates merit-based standards to justify potential benefits the population-at-large. In other words, let’s continue to take talented individuals from other countries that lack resources—due in part to our policies—because we can put them to work in our country to assist in projects that reinforce America’s excellence. Like many social movements, the political, social, and economical systems need to be transformed.
The intrusion on civil liberties scares me greatly. Isn’t it funny that many conservatives justify deportation without a trial or consent through Constitutional rhetoric even though the founders mentioned basic rights for all individuals? Moreover, isn’t it funny that infringements on the right to bear arms causes dissent; however, infringements on basic Constitutional rights are encouraged when the issues revolve around immigration? In my opinion, individuals should never be subjected to charges without the right to trial or against their consent. In addition, as we have come to see throughout class, several policies and criminal justice systems continue to serves as forms of ongoing punishment even after individuals have served their times for “crimes.” I am not surprised that the U.S. circumvents human rights for national security because individuals within the government have been doing in for decades. I am fearful that, as the economy gets worse, greater calls for nationalism will be championed and the debate over immigration reform will turn for the worse.
Post a Comment