"Should more creative and positive alternatives to meet [immigration concerns] continue to be neglected, nativist trends will proliferate across the nation."
I wrote that as a policy warning in the conclusion of my Master's thesis back in spring of 2009. Now, nearly three years to the day, the Supreme Court Justices are set to consider the constitutionality of Arizona's restrictionist immigration law. The decision they render could alter the course of American history.
While most conversations will focus on the legal arguments, I'm going to talk about the intent of these laws and the principles these policies seek to undermine. After all, the most important thing to the people and to the stability of our country is the legacy of fairness that undergirds our constitutional principles. It is that ever fragile ideal of 'justice on both sides' to which state level anti-immigrant policies now lay siege.
Immigrants--particularly Latinos in both their specificity and generality--are seen as "other" than what some folks--from everyday citizens to those embedded in our national security apparatus--conceive of as "real Americans", or productive, law abiding members of society. Even though greater than 85% of Latinos are citizens and legal residents, we disproportionately carry the burdensome weight of being illegal as stigma.
While this existentialist belief in illegality--the core of the anti-immigrant argument--runs contrary to every academically rigorous research paper on the subject, political leaders such as Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, relentlessly push their disingenuous vitriol onto the public sphere with abjectly false statements like:
"We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it: everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and extortion and the beheadings and the fact that people can't feel safe in their communities; it's wrong!"
The American sociologist, Erving Goffman, famously wrote, "By definition...we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination." The type of stigma that particularly fits us Latinos, he called a "tribal stigma" such as "race, nation, [and] religion." These, said Goffman, "can be transmitted through lineages [or entire ethnicities] and equally contaminate all members of a family."
So in the case of the contemporary immigration question, specifically Latinos--not entirely unlike the Irish, Italians and Jews in times past--have been dehumanized and demonized as undesirables, as illegals. And it isn't just those who are undocumented; we are all caricatured as "illegal criminals". Even our children, who represent roughly a full third of our population, are caste in such stigmatizing terms as anchor babies... dog food... parasites. As Elena Schlossberg cogently stated in a 2007 county board meeting, "They are talking about children! And [politicians] have not taken a leadership role to stop this!"
You see, when I think of Latinos, I think of artists and poets and proud, hard working families. I think of the people who will--quite literally--sustain the very foundations of this great nation when, in the not-so-distant future, most other demographics begin a precipitous decline.
But that intolerably pejorative term "illegal" spoils everything positive and powerful about what it means to be Latino. In the process of being labeled as illegals, we move away from the self identity as one of this nation's greatest hopes and toward the social construction of dark, dangerous and dirty criminals; criminals who do not respect U.S. culture, language or laws. Thus, using the term "illegal", which functions as a racial epithet, allows "legals" to justify passing all sorts of race-laced laws because "illegals"--criminals--destroy thriving, safe communities.
Anti-immigrant laws are inherently or structurally discriminatory precisely because their juridical constructions are directly premised, not on fact, but on the wretched foundations of negative stereotypes and stigmas. These laws go beyond the tacit encouragement of racial profiling by overtly validating the coerced removal of security threats, the definitions of which are constructed out of false ideologies of criminality.
These laws should be seen for what they are: attempts to shred the fabric of American culture. This is a state-by-state effort to chip away at the very essence of who we are as a nation. They don't simply mirror nor do they compliment federal policy. Rather, with sweeping and divisive hostility, they both impede upon the sense of justice and fairness laid out by the American Constitution's Enlightenment principles, and vis-à-vis stigma, they attempt to alter the definition(s) of who is and who is not American. The later represents the first material steps toward creating a pervasive "show-me-your-papers" society; a dystopic reality already being forced upon clergy and elementary school students in states like Alabama.
Indeed, Judge Bolton noted in her opinion that these laws will significantly increase "the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up" by requiring everybody to prove their status.
Not once has history rewarded societies that follow this foreshadowed path. So when the Supreme Court Justices hear this case, they truly ought to let their minds wander a bit to the imagery conjured by that notion.
And as you watch and wait for their decision, you ought to do the same.
Follow Leo Pierson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@leopierson.
It was no surprise that when this news came out and the LA Times editorialized in support of it, numerous companies announced plans to open new facilities in the area to employ such a highly qualified workforce.
I don't believe it's possible to have an honest debate if we come straight to the table with terminology that is inherently dishonest on it's face. I understand the need to do so, but ultimately, it's intellectually dishonest.
There are many who would like to come to the United States in their lifetime, but unfortunately for them, not everyone who would like to immigrate to the US will be able to do so. If they are lucky, perhaps their children will.
So what this comes down to is that there are those in our society who are impatient and what instant gratification. Damn the rules, I want what I want when I want it. The ends justify the means. It's okay to advocate for a group, but let's be honest exactly what you're advocating for and start using the correct terminology.
We can wait. :-)
I told the airport manager about thie problem, and told him to call the police and the city council about this problem. He said he would since he moved there from Orlando because he got tired of having nothing but Spanish being used. So I am sure he will follow up on getting this crook off the streets of Rome, GA. He did not have a drivers license since GA requires proof of legal residency, and they only give the drivers test in English. So the guy is a crook in violating Federal laws of working in the US, and breaking the laws of GA by not having a license. Of course, he had no insurance or anything else. So how many laws can illegals break before they get deported?
Not to sidetrack this, I want to at least say "thank you" for commenting on this yourself.
Many writers don't bother to engage their audience, particularly those who might face scrutiny. But you have the guts to face those who disagree with you.
I appreciate that you care about this enough to comment.
1) Should the U.S. have the right to control who enters and resides within its borders?
2) Should we not be allowed to control who enters and resides within our borders simply because most of the people who illegally enter and reside are of a particular ethnicity?
3) Should people not be accountable to law simply because they are of the ethnicity of the vast majority of those who are in violation of that law?
Maybe being that 86% of illegal aliens in this country are Hispanic might have something to do with it, you think?
America has it's pick of the best, the most skilled people in the world, why should they just allow the world's welfare cases to come here and become citizens. Out of 6.5 billion people we have our pick. Allowing amnesty will swamp our nation, break down our social system, over burden us and lead to a complete breakdown and the people coming here without a invite don't care. Our laws are not anti immigration, they are anti illegal alien. You don't have a visa, go home.
These people have a country. They choose not to do much to improve it.
And providing amnesty for millions of people who don't have an education (and don't value education) will only improve the gene pool!!
In case you haven't seen it, the movie Idiocracy outlines our future to a T.
You're correct; in many ways we have our pick, and ironically our broken system undercuts our capacity to effectively do the picking. Also, what is here overlooked is that our country is not a solitary legal entity. In fact, we are juridically tied to other countries (e.g. Mexico, South Korea, Colombia, etc.) in intricate ways that do not permit us easily to extract ourselves from those linkages whenever a whim suits us. This more nuanced perspective renders the ideas of "the world's welfare cases" and "they choose..." as analytically insufficient—as if the U.S. were separate from "the rest of the world". These processes are every bit as much about us as "them". So much so that the boundaries (or borders if you will) between us and them have become increasingly blurred.
When one directly links any two economies, this erodes the economic and thus effective sovereignty of each state to the extent that the contract permits; often more so than was conceived of by the contract's authors (Congress). It may or may not be a "discontent" of citizens of either country. Regardless, political and economic interconnectedness are direct effects of that which we broadly refer to as "globalization".
Why do you continually use the term anti-immigrant, when it's really anti-illegal immigrant ?
Can you not attract an audience by telling the truth ?