Blanket Terms Have got to Go!

The following post is provided by Jean Marie Place. Place is a third-year PhD student at the University of South Carolina in the department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior. 

ImageRecently I was asked by a friend through email, “How are the little Latinos doing?” referring to my friends and my life in Mexico.  I am currently a doctoral student from the United States and I have lived in Mexico for the past six months.  I cringed when I read these words in the email.  I thought of how some of my Latino friends would react to such a classification!  At the epicenter of their culture are ancient, powerful civilizations like the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans.  Globally, there is little comparison in the richness of their cultural heritage.  Yet, implicit in the words “little Latinos” is a blanket commentary on their status as second and third world countries and the belief that they are something “other than” and “less than” what my friend is; a North American.  Labeling “the other” as different and inferior has been used time and time again as a tool to oppress and dehumanize.   There is the case of women as “witches,” Jews as “unclean” and Blacks as “separate but equal.”  I cringed when I read my friend’s email because the labels we use matter.  They are indicative of how we view, and likely treat, those around us.

The term “illegal immigrant” is no exception.  A few weeks ago I was involved in a lively discussion about the use of the term “illegal” to describe those who enter our country without papers.  I stood by the use of “undocumented or unauthorized worker” to describe the situation.  People questioned why I wanted to water down the issue with foggy language.  “Call it what it is – something that is illegal,” they said.  My response is that using the word “illegal” does not water down the debate, it stops it dead in its tracks.  Though we can almost all agree that the immigration system needs restructuring, those who actively advocate for it are seen as defending that which is “illegal” and thus unjustifiable.  Using such terminology, those who work for reform will always be at a disadvantage.

Avoiding the word “illegal” would advance the agenda of immigration reform in a more productive way, but I actually think the issue has more far-reaching implications.  As I have reflected on the two CNN opinion pieces that addressed the “i word” issue, I thought back to the email my friend wrote when he used the term “little Latinos.”  The term “illegal immigrant” is a similar form of ‘othering’ and its consequences ring a familiar bell in history.  I worry the term “illegal” has such a repugnant smell to most North Americans that, when using the label “illegal,” it is easier to dismiss, ignore, or even remove rights these people have as individuals, and not just immigrants.  It is my argument that we need to be wary of words used to oppress and dehumanize – a pattern played out across history and around the world.

(See http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html and http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/opinion/navarrette-illegal-immigrant/index.html?c=homepage-t)

Analysis: The Next Immigration Challenge

From The New York Times:

By DOWELL MYERS

January 11, 2012

LOS ANGELES — THE immigration crisis that has roiled American politics for decades has faded into history. Illegal immigration is shrinking to a trickle, if that, and will likely never return to the peak levels of 2000. Just as important, immigrants who arrived in the 1990s and settled here are assimilating in remarkable and unexpected ways.

Taken together, these developments, and the demographic future they foreshadow, require bold changes in our approach to both legal and illegal immigration. Put simply, we must shift from an immigration policy, with its emphasis on keeping newcomers out, to an immigrant policy, with an emphasis on encouraging migrants and their children to integrate into our social fabric. “Show me your papers” should be replaced with “Welcome to English class.”

Restrictionists, including those driving much of the debate on the Republican primary trail, still talk as if nothing has changed. But the numbers are stark: the total number of immigrants, legal and illegal, arriving in the 2000s grew at half the rate of the 1990s, according to the Census Bureau.

The most startling evidence of the falloff is the effective disappearance of illegal border crossers from Mexico, with some experts estimating the net number of new Mexicans settling in the United States at zero. The size of the illegal-immigrant population peaked in 2007, with about 58 percent of it of Mexican origin, according to the Pew Hispanic Center; since 2008, that population has shrunk by roughly 200,000 a year. Illegal immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe have similarly dwindled in numbers.

This new equilibrium is here to stay, in large part because Mexico’s birthrate is plunging. In 1970 a Mexican woman, on average, gave birth to 6.8 babies, and when they entered their 20s, millions journeyed north for work. Today the country’s birthrate — at 2.1 — is approaching that of the United States. That portends a shrinking pool of young adults to meet Mexico’s future labor needs, and less competition for jobs at home. (more…)

On The Swine Business, Unions & Mexico’s Great Migration

Abel Cervantes, a worker at the Smithfield pork plant in Tar Heel, was cut by a knife at work. At 20 years old, he can no longer use his hand or work. (Photo by David Bacon)

Writing for The Nation, David Bacon has a well researched piece that connects the dots between U.S. trade policy and today’s debate on undocumented immigration. It specifically addresses how so many Mexican pig farmers came to live in North Carolina. Bacon also notes the position of prominent migrant rights groups, that real immigration reform means the reshaping of our trade policies, ensuring they don’t displace people by wrecking local economies – not just building fences and raiding meatpacking warehouses.

There are some constructive proposals on the table. The TRADE Act, proposed in the 110th Congress by Maine Democratic Representative Mike Michaud, received support from many migrant rights groups because it would hold hearings to re-examine the impact of NAFTA, including provisions like the environmental side agreement that did nothing to restrict the impact of [Smithfield-affiliated hog-raising corporation] Granjas Carroll on Perote Valley. Another immigration reform proposal, called the Dignity Campaign, goes one step further. It would ban agreements that lead to displacement, like that caused by pork imports or the cross-border investments that created the Perote pig farms. It would also repeal employer sanctions, the immigration law that led to the firing of so many Veracruz migrants at the Tar Heel plant.

“Employer sanctions have little effect on migration,” says Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, “but they have made workers more vulnerable to employer pressure. The rationale has always been that this kind of enforcement will dry up jobs for the undocumented and discourage them from coming. However, they actually become more desperate and take jobs at lower wages—in effect, a subsidy to employers.”

“When you make someone’s status even more illegal,” Carolina Ramirez adds, “you just make their living and working conditions worse. Jobs become like slavery. And if there are no remittances, kids in Veracruz can’t go to school or to the doctor. All the social problems we already have get worse. And all this just provokes more migration.”

The Dignity Campaign and similar proposals are not viable in a Congress dominated by Tea Party nativists and corporations seeking guest-worker programs. But as it took a civil rights movement to pass the Voting Rights Act, any basic change to establish the rights of immigrants will also require a social upheaval and a fundamental realignment of power.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.