Illegal immigrant new era of racism?

Through our blog we hope to focus on how language has attributed to the misguided portrayal of illegal immigrants, and Latinos. The first issue to be addressed is the use of alien and illegal immigrant interchangeable. In class we read an article by Haney Lopez in which he discusses the historical racial projects, an effort to reorganize the government based on race.  He Defines alien and someone who is not born in the United States and not a citizen. But due to media this term has negative connotation that clings to it.

Our society’s interpretation of alien is more abstract than Lopez’s. With movies like Battle Los Angeles and, Alien vs. Predator, aliens resemble people from another world whose language and culture is distinctly different from our own. So different in fact that there is no chance that they will assimilate. It also does not help that these “aliens” in the movies are out to destroy the world. This extreme view of aliens is similar to how Americans view aliens/illegal immigrants. This is why our blog advocates for the removal of the term from American vocabulary, because it is dehumanizing and portrays a specific group of people’s personal qualifications, ones chance of assimilation, as unlikely.

I prefer the use of illegal immigrant rather than alien to describe those without citizenship status. I believe that it fits. Those entering out country without documentation are in fact committing a crime. But they are also people. I reference the fact that the United States was built on the foundation of immigration in my public service announcement as support. My campaign contradicts one of my group member’s views on the use of the word illegal immigrant but I feel that Americans have an inherent need to classify people into categories. As an immigrant myself, I believe that there is a difference between someone who has come to the United States and when through the citizenship process and others who have come into the country under the radar. Our goals are both the same to better our situation, but are status is not. There are specific benefits that I as an immigrant am privy to that illegal immigrants are not. For example, scholarship money and grants for school.

We also address the new form of discrimination and Racism that has been part of the United States infrastructure since the beginning of our nation’s history. In the past years, the new face of oppression has become that of illegal immigrants of Latino descent.  Aliens and illegal immigrants have become the scapegoat for the rise in unemployment and our budget deficit. The media and the government have been producing common sense, or societal accepted meanings about race, that classifies Latinos as the “others”.

The common sense created has caused a rift between illegal immigrants and citizens. Claims that aliens and illegal immigrations are taking all the jobs and gaining benefits from our government without filing taxes are just a few of the characteristics attributed to Latinos that was created by common sense. In general out society has attached criminal to the stereotype of being an illegal immigrant. This has supplied the argument that Latinos are the “others” strength.

I did a little research and found out that the categorizing of those of Latino ethnicity as illegal immigrants is false. On the website immigration.procon.org there is a breakdown of the top 10 countries from which illegal immigrants originate from. Latino countries hold the number one spot but other countries that you would not expect are also on the list. Below is the pie chart that shows the distribution of illegal immigrants. You can see that surprisingly after Latino counties East Asian countries follow in second with the most illegal immigrants.

Using Foucault’s view on truth and power we can look closely at the hegemony created. There is a distinct division of power being created. Due to the stereotyping of Latinos as illegal immigrants, broadcasted throughout the media, and not Asians there is no mistrust expressed towards the hiring of Asian employees or attribution of criminal to their motives. This power hierarchy benefits Asians to better jobs and opportunities than Latinos.

Overall, I find that illegal immigration has been pushed as a hot button issue in order to distract from other problems in American society. It has been a ploy to deter from focus on the increasing budget deficit, and overspending on military. This is supported by Shohat and Sham perspective on oppressive discourse, which enables one ethnic group to become the scapegoat for various problems created by the government. The use of words such as “Alien” and the common sense and stereotype that illegal immigrants are only Latino has aided the expansion of this Hegemonic roast. With all this support how can we not quesiton whether or not this is the new era of racism, in which citizens are being pinned against non-citizens?

            Aline Munyansanga

Is Racism Influencing the Immigration Debate?

By: Amy Ketner

Racism and immigration reform are often not blatantly named in the same sentence, although they are dangerously tangled.  One article in Time U.S. addresses the two issues together though and notes the importance of doing so.  Although this article is over six years old, it could be republished today and the issues would still be relevant.

Read the article here

The author, Massimo Calabresi, explicitly acknowledges the ways in which racist thinking influences immigration laws.  Racist scholars and politicians, as well as a racist public, push for stricter laws that will seal the border and push out Hispanics and Latin@s.  While there are ways to mask this discussion and make it seem more about employment and other statistics and demographics, for many people immigration is simply a matter of keeping non-whites out of the country, perpetuating a racial dictatorship.*

Calabresi discusses a comment of one Fox News member, John Gibson, in which he implores white people to have more babies because soon the minorities will be a majority.  Not only does Calabresi discuss the statistical inaccuracy of this comment, but also the meaning of it.  There is a clear sense of fear in his statement.  Heaven forbid that there are more minorities in this country than the white majority.  If this happens, it is more likely that whites will lose pieces of their white power.  Perhaps Gibson and others like him feel as if this is another small step closer to becoming the oppressed rather than the oppressor.  Perhaps he feels that if enough people from Mexico and Latin American countries enter the US that it will no longer be a country ran by those who were born and raised here, by those who are like him.  The country his grandchildren are born into could look significantly different than that into which he was born.  It seems as this is a scary concept for Gibson and many others like him. 

This is a mentality that frequently plays into immigration debates, though perhaps not commonly as explicitly or crudely as Gibson’s encouragement of white procreation.  This is an example of how racism is transforming over time.  In this post-Civil-Rights era we are often fooled to think that because we are not shackling people of a certain color into slavery or labeling water fountains as white or colored, we are being progressive and beyond issues of racism. 

Racism still permeates society.  It exists.  It is powerful.

Discussions of immigration reform are a platform for these racist tendencies to shine their brightest.  Some Americans state that they don’t want Latin@ immigrants in the US because they will steal our jobs.  Translation: we fear “the other”.  Some say that Hispanics and Latin@s bring drugs and gangs and violence.  Translation: Hispanics and Latin@s are criminals and immoral.  Those who say these things do not consider socioeconomic status, nor the roles that the US has in this lack of employment in other countries.  They forget the role Americans have in drugs, violence and gang activity that a few immigrants participate in.  The immigrants become the scapegoated other, and therefore the feared other.  ‘Immigrants as the other’ becomes ‘Hispanics and Latin@s as the other’.  This was demonstrated in our survey when participants responded that “Mexican” and “Hispanic” came to mind when thinking of the word illegal. 

Racism is a significant factor in the immigration debates, yet one we somehow manage to not acknowledge.  Calabresi is not afraid to name this racism and, with reason, urges us to openly talk about this fact.  We cannot let this racism persist in such a huge issue that affects millions of families.  We cannot let white power (and white fear) continue to control this entire system that is changing the face of our country.

Works Cited:

* Michael Omi and Howard Winant. “Racial Formation,” Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge, 1994. 53-76.

Shit White Girls Say to Latinas

By: Amy Ketner

Want a good laugh? Watch this video.

Why is it so funny?  The answer is two-fold: first because the white girl shows her ignorance, but second because her performance is, sadly, accurate.  I frequently hear white people say these things to Latin@s, and I’m not even Latina, so I know I don’t hear the half of it.

These stereotypes and moments of ignorance highlighted in the video demonstrate the ways in which race is a social construction¹, meaning it is not biological, stable or exact, but rather created by those in power through means of law, science, media, and more.  The opening liner shows this immediately: “Are you Spanish?  I can’t even tell you’re Spanish.”  First of all, the girl she is talking to is not Spanish, but rather Ecuadorian, though the white girl never seems to understand that there is a difference.  Once we can get beyond that, we must wonder, what is it that makes a person “look Spanish” (or perhaps she was trying to say Latina or Ecuadorian)?  What are the markers that of authenticity² that determine ones race in the eyes of society?  Do Latin@s frequently “pass”² for being white or other races?  What about the Latin@s who are black or other races?  How does our society categorize this group of individuals?  When someone does not fit neatly into a certain racial category based on their looks and performativity², it often makes us uncomfortable.

However, once one finds out about the race/origins of a person, sometimes that person is made exotic.  There could not be a clearer example than in this video when the white girl says: “Oh you’re from Ecuador? How exotic!  We don’t have a lot of those here.”  She blatantly states that the Latina’s origins are exotic, which is a form of racism called exoticism³.  Shohat and Stam state that this racism makes the “other” out to be not something to be disdained as in traditional racism, but rather something fascinating and intriguing.  The white girl even said “we don’t have a lot of those here” meaning that the Latina’s roots are a rarity here, and dehumanizing an entire race of people by calling them “those” as if things.

This exoticism is also illuminated when the white girl asks her Latina friend if she would ever date a white guy, participating in miscegenation⁴.  This falls under the exoticism category as well, for she points to white guys and sticks out her tongue and acts bored, yet tries to encourage a her friend to be attracted to a Latino.  By calling white guys boring, she is inadvertently suggesting that Latino boys are more interesting and attractive, and this is exoticism. 

Hegemony⁵ comes into play in several ways, such as when the white girl, a woman of the agent racial group, assumes that the Latina would know someone who can fix her car, mow her lawn or repair her roof - jobs that she presumably does not want or know how to do.  These jobs are manual, exhausting, and low-paying, therefore they are often left to the marginalized of society to do.  In addition, they are jobs that can often be done without citizenship papers, and so many undocumented migrants find work in these positions.  Hegemony, or cultural domination, is shown here because it has become common sense in society that people who are less deserving do those jobs, which means people of lower classes and without papers get stuck with them.  When the white girl asks the Latina if she knows anyone who can do such jobs, she is giving into this common sense because she assumes that since her friend is Latina, she will know people – perhaps even her own brother – who can do these jobs.  She is associating her friend’s Latino race with a job she refuses to do.  This affirms her power over the Latino race, her hegemony as a white person.

The rest of the video is full of stereotyping, such as the assumption that the Latina friend likes Tequila, tacos and chalupas, knows how to dance like Shakira, and has a Latino friend who is a gangbanger.  Stereotypes are parasitic in our society.  When backed with power, they allow certain groups to maintain cultural domination.  These groups perpetuate the images of what kinds of jobs certain categories of people should occupy, what language they should be allowed to speak (“Can you like not speak Spanish with your friends around me?  Rude!”), what they should look like, and so much more. 

It is this stereotyping and prejudice, faced by both foreign nationals and Latinos born in the US, that causes tensions in our society.  I have spoken to many Latin@s from other countries who have told me they would not want to live in our beautiful country because discrimination is so prevalent.  This saddens me greatly.  Our country has so much to offer, but clearly also a long way to go.  We need to break down these stereotypes so that one day this video is funny for one reason only: because the white girl is so ignorant, not because she is ignorant and because the video rings true.

I will end by using the white girl’s words, but rather than challenge the Latin@s with them as she did, I use them to challenge those who hold such stereotypical views of Latin@s.  Friends, “I’m sorry but this is America”.  Let’s work past these stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination and work toward equality for all, regardless of origin, race, language, or citizenship status.

Works Cited:

 ¹ Michael Omi and Howard Winant. “Racial Formation,” Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge, 1994. 53-76.

 ² American Culture 311: Race and Mixed Race Lecture. 29 October 2012. Professor Alsultany.

 ³ Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, “From Eurocentrism to Polycentrism,” in Unthinking

Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media (New York: Routledge, 1994). 18-25

 ⁴ American Culture 311: Race and Mixed Race Lecture. 22 October 2012. Professor Alsultany.

 ⁵ James Lull, “Hegemony,” in Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez, Eds. Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Text Reader, 2nd Ed. London: Sage Publications, 2000. 61-66.

References (Amber's Posts)

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. “Postscript: What Is to Be Done (For Real).” RacismWithout Racists. 229-241.

Borjas, George. "The Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market." Web. <http://jvi.org/fileadmin/jvi_files/Warsaw_Conference/Papers_and_Presentations/Borjas_paper.pdf>.

Elam, Michele. “Performing Mixed Race in Dave Chappelle’s ‘The Racial Draft,’”The Souls of Mixed Folk, Stanford University Press, 2011. 163-179.

Omi, Michael and Winant, Howard. “Racial Formation,” Racial Formation in theUnited States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge, 1994. 53-76.

Note about my posts:
My two posts ended up being a lot longer than the original requirement of 3, 2 page double-spaced, posts. Both of mine are 4-5 pages double-spaced each. Therefore I only wrote two posts instead of three, but the same amount of work is still there. :)

Immigration, Language & Stand-Up Comedy (Amber's Post #2)

In our course reading, "Performing Mixed Race in Dave Chappelle's 'The Racial Draft'" by Michele Elam, it was argued that comedy can be used as a political statement, in this case challenging rigid categories of race. In this skit, Dave Chappelle creates a racial draft to determine which mixed celebrities will be inducted and claimed by which races. Elam argues that this points out that, "race is, in fact, very much a national game, pastime, hobby, and public spectacle" (Elam, 4). Yet how can we tell if a comedy skit is in fact challenging ideas of race (or other politically charged topics) rather than perpetuating stereotypes and racist ideals? And even if we can determine the comedian's intentions for the show, will the audience interpret what they see and hear in the same way?

Comedy is rich with areas for analysis because it is the perfect reflection of culture. Whether it's countering common norms and assumptions, or playing into them, the fact that they are funny demonstrates a common understanding, knowledge, and cultural experience that the audience shares.

Below I analyze two different comedy skits by noting what major themes their jokes utilize, defend, or argue against, and consider questions such as:

• What themes do the jokes touch on? 
• Is this comedian challenging racial norms or reinforcing them? 
• What kind of political statement is the comedian making? 
• How will the audience interpret this skit? 
• In what ways might these jokes be offensive?
• How might these skits, and the language that's used, change or maintain our society's perceptions and attitudes towards immigration and specifically undocumented immigrants?

Comedian: Danny Rolando

Themes that his jokes engage:

• Immigrants are Latinos/Latinas from Mexico 
• Immigrants are criminals
• Undocumented Immigrants doing jobs citizens don't want to do

Danny Rolando is creating poetical tension and making statements that challenge our traditional views of undocumented immigration. I would argue his intention is to 'side with' undocumented immigrants and point out the injustices in our system. For example he reminds us to check our history because "Immigration wasn't illegal when Columbus got here." This challenges racial hierarchies that assume that whites got here first and that they are the true face of America while immigrants (in this case Rolando is referring to Latinos/Latinas) are breaking the law and invading soil that is meant for Americans. Omi and Winant would argue that this is because we are still living in, and transitioning away from, a racial dictatorship in which one race (white) is considered superior and has control. The consequences of this way of thinking must be considered as we move forward in an attempt to create a racial democracy as they are ingrained into U.S politics, and as Danny Rolando pointed out, even into our holidays such as Columbus Day. Rolando is also challenging illegal immigration narratives by pointing out that Arizona (referring to SB 1070) wants to "card everybody" and the inconsistencies in this line of thinking in light of the Tuscon shooting. He wants the audience to consider that a white citizen killed ten people, yet we haven't heard about undocumented immigrants committing these violent crimes, so is this policy really keeping anyone safe?

Rolando does perpetuate a few stereotypes about immigrants, and whether he meant to or not is irrelevant, as the audience will likely absorb these stereotypes as further proof of their validity. For example, Danny only references Latinos and Mexico in his jokes about immigration. I do think that most audience members would question our nations policies on immigration after considering the fact that immigration it can even be "illegal" is only a recent possibility.

Danny Rolando uses the term "illegal immigrants" which, as you have likely gathered by now, I'm not very fond of. "Illegal immigrant" implies that these individuals themselves are illegal and it questions their very existence as humans. However, Rolando really puts the word "illegal" in question by articulating the history of immigration, as I mentioned above.

Ultimately, this skit probably 'evens out' in terms of creating change. He does call into question our government policies, and hopefully some of his audience members leave questioning things like Arizona SB 1070 and our exploitation of people for cheap labor. But at the same time, he perpetuates stereotypes of undocumented immigrants being from Mexico and uses the term "illegal immigrant" quite a bit. Most likely, people who leave his show are not doing so with a new profound realization of undocumented immigration.

Comedian: Rick D'Elia

Themes that his jokes engage:

• Closing the borders
• Immigrants costing us money 

Rick D'Elia manged to get me fired up in only a minute and a half. There are a few major issues that I have with what his jokes imply. First he starts off saying that we need to do something about closing up the borders. This statement alone is politically charged. It indicates that immigrants (documented or not) are not welcome here. It also focuses on immigration via physically moving oneself (swimming, walking) across the border, rather than via forged documents or legally entering the country on documents that later expire. Therefore this travel can really only be coming from Mexico, Cuba, or Canada. But thanks to the stereotypical naming of these imaginary immigrants D'Elia jokes about it's clear they're from Mexico and Cuba. Of course there are people crossing into the U.S. through these routes, but the offensiveness of that assumption is nothing compared to the larger argument Rick D'Elia is making. His solution to our immigration "problem" is to create a reality TV show, capture the incredible hardships and dangers that individuals face on their journey, and then laugh at their pain. To him, these people are a possible source of entertainment that we, as good citizens, should be able to take pleasure in watching them attempt to gain the prize of citizenship. Rather than stopping to consider why it is that these men, women, and children, would fight so hard and risk their lives to come here, he wants to create a game show. If everyone in the audience isn't totally offended yet (sadly, it seems as though the people who pay to watch his comedy show I enjoying this proposed solution), he throws in the kicker: the money raised on advertising (because every American will be tuned in to watch "Who Wants to be a Citizen") would cover the costs of health care and other benefits that undocumented immigrants "sponge off of our government." It's no wonder that our nation is full of turmoil over immigration issues. People like Rick D'Elia are doing stand-up shows that portray Americans as pure and deserving and immigrants as animals that we can capitalize on, they aren't really people anyway, they're "illegals".

I, and many others I'm sure, am deeply offended watching this stand-up routine. It is clearly not satire, because rather than pointed out the horrible ways we already treat these people, and pointing out that they are, in fact, people, his jokes dehumanize and mock the experience of individuals who make undocumented passage into the United States from Mexico and Cuba. However, the people who watch this stand-up and find it funny (judging by the cheering and the comments below the YouTube video there are quite a few of these individuals as well) are only being validated in their viewpoints and treatment of immigrants as others. As I talked about in my previous post (Papers? Papers? We Don't Serve Your Kind Here), language and actions like those of this comedian are creating an atmosphere where looking down on, and otherizing immigrants (sadly this often includes all Latinos/Latinas by association) is accepted, and in this case cheered for, we are moving backwards and solidifying our nation as a racial hierarchy. Elam would likely agree that this comedy skit is offensive and racist, but perhaps it could still do some good. For the majority of Americans who are apathetic about these topics, seeing this comedy skit (in combination with Rolando's) might motivate them and remind them that there are many people who still view immigrants as inferior and that people need to stand up (as Bonilla Silva would want) and point out these injustices. Changes our langauage, and the way we talk about these issues, is the first step we need to take to move towards equality.

Drop the I-Word: Otherization

The first time I learned about immigration was freshman year. As an RC student, I was placed in an Intensive Spanish class. An hour a day, I went to my discussion section. The purpose of the class was to help students learn to have scholarly discussions about topics in Spanish, to improve our speaking and reading skills.

Although I found the discussion section helpful in teaching me Spanish, what I found most exciting about it was its topic: immigration. I can remember the exact moment when I began to care about immigration. It was in the middle of class one day; we were learning about Mexican immigrants coming to the United States. A boy in my class called the immigrants “ilegales,” which means “illegals.” My professor stopped the class.

She spoke slowly and deliberately in Spanish, so that even the students who most struggled with Spanish could understand. “We need to be careful about what words we choose to use,” she said, looking at each of us. “There is a big difference between using the word ‘illegal’ and the word ‘undocumented’ when describing immigrants. There is a whole debate surrounding it. In this classroom, we will only use the word “undocumented” when we talk about immigrants. Calling someone “illegal” takes away their human dignity. No human being is illegal. If you have any more questions, you may come to my office hours.”

Her speech gave me chills. I had never heard of this controversy before, and had not expected my professor to get so serious about it. I went to her office hours later that week to learn more. I sat with her and listened as she explained to me that calling someone “illegal” or “alien” sets him or her apart from the norm of society.

            “We are all human,” my professor told me. “No matter our immigration status. Just because someone doesn’t have the right papers, doesn’t mean that they’re any less human than the rest of us.”

            What she had taught me, essentially, was that calling someone an “illegal alien” was making them into the other in society. Now, after taking American Culture 311, I finally have the vocabulary to express what this “otherization” is.

The “Other” is marked by absences – they lack something. Those absences make this person different, apart from the norm.

By calling someone “illegal,” we are establishing a normative and standard identity. All other identities are compared to this norm. In our case, the norm is being a US citizen. In lecture, we also discussed how the common norm in the US is being a white, heterosexual, English-speaking, upper-middle class, Christian, able-bodied male citizen.

Some immigrants, and often Latin American immigrants, don’t fit this normative identity. They often have darker skin, speak Spanish, and may be lower on the socio-economic spectrum. Added to these identities is the fact that some immigrants don’t have the right papers, and are undocumented. In many ways, these immigrants are far from the norm. They are the other.

In class, we learned that the other is:

•       Establishing a normative/standard identity through which other identities are measured or compared. In our case, the normative and standard identity is having papers, visas or passports.

•       Refers to that which is understood as the symbolic opposite/binary opposite to the normative category. The opposite of the norm of having papers is not having paper, or being undocumented.

In all cases of being the “other” in society, there is always terminology to accompany and point out the differences – to “otherize” the group of people. I’m sure readers of this post will easily be able to think of derogatory terms that accompany each “other” identity – terms for being racially different than the white norm, terms for being religiously different from the Christian norm, terms for being sexually oriented differently than the heterosexual norm.

For being the “other” in terms of immigration, the derogatory terminology to “otherize” the group are words like “illegal” and “alien.” These terms point out that undocumented immigrants are different from “what is right” in US society.

 After I left my professor’s office, I was inspired to do my part to stop the use of this derogatory language. I’ve learned all about different campaigns across the country to stop using the I-word. Colorlines.com has been campaigning for media outlets to stop referring to immigrants as “illegals” since September 2010. In a letter to the New York Times, they wrote,

Calling someone an "illegal immigrant" is 1) legally inaccurate and misleading 2) politically loaded and popularized by anti-immigrant strategists and 3) experienced as racially biased and dehumanizing by the people it is used to describe. The current debate presents an opportunity for journalists to be responsible to their readers by dropping this coded language. (For more information on this campaign, click here).

Other campaigns are even closer to home. Social Work Allies for Immigrant’s Rights (SWAIR), a group from the University of Michigan, held a campaign this fall labeled “Drop the I-Word Week.” They wrote,

Our goal is simple. SWAIR believes that language matters. Let’s take a stand to eradicate the dehumanizing slur "illegals" from everyday use and public discourse so that we may have a respectful debate on immigration.

The University of Michigan’s student group, Migrant and Immigrant Rights Advocacy, held a similar campaign last year. Both groups sold t-shirts for students to wear:

 The more I learn about discrimination, the more it is clear to me that using words like “illegal alien” are wrong. Colorlines.com advocates replacing “illegal” with words like “unauthorized,” “aspiring citizen,” and “entered without inspection.” These terms are good, and I agree with the organization that they are much better than discriminatory words like “illegal.” But I also think using the word “undocumented” to replace illegal is easy and simple enough. It’s not hard to see how words like “illegal” make someone become an “other” in society. By using different words to describe immigrants, we can change how society sees immigration. Changing language can change the world.

Click here to sign the pledge to stop using the i-word.

Survey Says!

By: Amy Ketner

With the help of my project partners, I sent out a survey* asking participants one simple question: What are the first three words or phrases that come to mind when you think of the word “illegal”?  The results were fascinating.

Though 110 responded, only 100 results were able to be analyzed due to website limitations; however the first 100 respondents had plenty to tell us.  I organized the results into several categories.  The most common words (136 total) were those of the category involving authority (“police” ,“jail”), criminals (“crime”, “getting caught”) and adjectives (“bad”, “unfair”, “wrong”).  Next common were those words relating to substances (“alcohol”, “marijuana”) with 65 responses falling in this category.  Just behind substances in the survey was immigration, with 45 related responses (“immigrant”, “alien”).  After immigration, there was a significant drop in the most commonly stated words, with theft and stealing next most frequent (10), followed by guns (7) and murder (4).  

Responses
Words related to legality, authority, punishment, etc	68
Adjectives (criminal, bad, dangerous, wrong, unfair, etc)	68
Substances (drinking, pot, etc)	65
Words related to immigration	45
Theft/Stealing	10
Guns	7
Murder	4
Miscellaneous	13

      

These results show a lot of implications about how society thinks about immigration.  First it shows that we talk about immigration so much in the context of legality that it comes to people’s minds over eleven times more frequently than the act of killing another person.  These results are stunning to me.  What we don’t know from the survey is how the participants feel about the issues surrounding immigration legality and reform, but we do know that in some manner they were led to think about it when prompted with simply the word “illegal”.  It has become part of our common sense that if we are talking about the act of entering our country, we are talking about something ‘wrong’, ‘criminal’ and ‘bad’, as our respondents overwhelmingly  named in their responses to “illegal”.  In this way, society has found a way to dehumanize an entire group of people, for immigrants suddenly become ranked among pot, alcohol, guns, thievery and crime.  When society is socialized to think of immigrants in terms of whether they are legally allowed to exist here or not, we learn to value them less.  We find certain qualities about them upon which to decide whether they deserve the same rights as we natives of the USA have.

Furthermore, it is necessary to look at the specifics of what was said within this immigration category.  Thirty of these 45 responses were either ‘immigrant’ or ‘immigration’.  Ten used the harsher term of ‘alien’ (see “Injustice Illustrated” post for more thoughts on the use of the word ‘alien’).  One person said ‘green card’, another said ‘emigrant’.  Where it gets difficult is in the explicit final two responses: ‘Mexican’ and ‘Hispanic’. 

Breakdown of Responses Related to Immigration
Immigrant/Immigration	30
Alien	11
Green Card	1
Emigrant	1
Hispanic	1
Mexican	1

Again, we cannot make presumptions about the viewpoint of the participants who stated these answers, for we do not know any further information about them (however we do know that they did not self-identify as Hispanic/Latino or Mexican on the survey, but rather as other races).  This means that just like we have been made to think about immigrants in terms of legality, we also sometimes think of people of a specific race or from a particular country in terms of their legality.  I find this to be incredibly troubling and problematic, for it reminds me so much of the pre-Civil Rights times, when our country used skin color and country origin to decide who ‘counted’ and who did not.  Here we are again, decades later, with a different skin color, different color of origin, different excuses, but the same question: is this person allowed to exist here as a citizen?  We have found another systemic way to discriminate against a people of an entire race, ethnicity and region, and have told them over and over that they don’t belong here and they don’t count.  In this process, we've debated about it in the media, government and other public spheres and eventually it becomes ingrained in our brains that immigrants are illegal…that Hispanics are illegal, that Mexicans are illegal.

No one is illegal.  Not an entire population, not an entire race or ethnicity, not an individual.  We must always challenge this rhetoric which allows us to dehumanize others.

*The survey was conducted on Survey Monkey and was sent out to our four friend circles via emails and facebook.  A copy can be found here.