I believe the saying goes, No matter how much things change, they seem to remain the same.
This can easily be said for the United States on immigration policy as it relates to Mexico. We have discussed in class some of the measures currently being discussed to diffuse the topic of illegal immigrants. Such as building a fence, making every one legal as they stand in the U.S. today, renewable temporary work permits, security and health checks, pay a fine and become legal, they take jobs from citizens, they lower the wage scale, etc. These are exactly the same options and concerns tossed about from our readings going back to the 1930s 1950s as they relate to illegal immigrants. 
The Bracero Program, according to the Truman Commission, said that this government sponsored contract labor program would eliminate illegal migration bring order to the farm labor market and protect foreign nationals from abuse. This was clearly not the case as with many government programs there were abuses and no money for enforcement. The Bracero Program legally allowed growers to bring in the help they needed from Mexico and pay them below wage even though they were to have a set wage. They allowed the workers to be housed in poor conditions and made them pay for their board and food. The Filipinos has somewhat the same strife as the Mexican farm worker except they seem to be more willing to strike and use the court system. They also seem to have a few advantages over their Mexican counterparts. The Filipino government looked out for their citizens that came to America. They set up agents in the US, they had a dialog with the US government, and more importantly the US needed their country for military reasons. Although the Philippines were a US territory, they still held some leverage against the US government.
The Filipinos were grouped in with the Chinese; they were excluded from becoming citizens. They tried to argue that of all the Asian groups, they assimilated the best with the American (white) culture. This did not hold up in court. People did not believe that “brown†people could obtain the same intelligence, morality and social characteristics of people. On page 117 of Ngai, there is a quote by Attorney General U. S. Webb, We thank God that only we, the white people, found it first (America) and we want to be protected in our enjoyment of it.
10 comments:
I also found it interesting how little government ‘solutions’ to the problem of illegal immigration have changed since the early 1900s. I think what the government fails to understand, or declines to admit, is that as long as we have strict regulations and limitations on legal immigration, there will always be illegal immigration. As long as businesses are hiring undocumented workers and we’re incorporating them into our economic system, they will continue to come. While national boundaries and laws of sovereignty have come to dominate our international political system, those boundaries remain arbitrary, and as long as people can find a way across them in hope of a better life, illegal immigration will continue to be an issue for the United States.
It’s irrational to think that building a fence will keep immigrants out. Or that enacting a guest worker program that didn’t work to quell illegal immigration 50 years ago will more successfully solve the problem today. But that’s the issue. Politicians don’t know how to solve the problem, so they’re treading water. Performing a balancing act that weighs the interests of employers in need of cheap, illegal labor against nativist Americans afraid of the loss of their jobs and culture. So they apply band-aids to the problems of immigration, just as they did 50 years ago, by establishing the Bracero program or attempting to repatriate as many Filipinos and Mexicans as possible when the sentiment against them grew too strong.
What I find most amazing, when speaking with people about the issue of illegal immigration, is how many people perceive the issue in absolutely black and white terms, and conclude that legal immigrants are fine, but illegal immigrants are automatically bad. The very word “illegal” indicates a criminal nature that people stepped into as soon as they crossed the border or arrived on US soil. So many people make statements like, “I don’t mind if they come, as long as they come legally”, and I think these statements undermine the complexity of the problem. People come to America for reasons behind our notions of legality versus illegality. They come for employment, they come to be with family members, they come in search of a better life. Yet if they come without proper documentation or overstay their visas, they find themselves given the title illegal, and granted all of the negative connotations, discriminations and restrictions that come with that title. It’s unfortunate that these people must reside in a country so riddled with contradiction, where they must live as “unwanted” by the American people, but needed by the American economy. But as long as this contradiction continues to exist, I believe the problem of illegal immigration will exist alongside it.
I agree with Meagan,as long as the U.S continues to use easy tactics to tackle the huge issue of immigration there will be no solution that will last for decades. There isn’t a easy button to the matter of immigration, but I do believe that the people who are really being affected are the immigrants.
Some people say that history goes in the straight line of progress. Other people say that history just repeats itself in endless cycles. But others see it as a spiral, with patterns that repeat many of the forms, but different each time as historical circumstances change. There are many similar patterns in the cycles of immigration policy in the USA. There have been periods of lax immigration policies and periods of restrictive immigration policies. These are often tied to issues of labor market needs as well as, somewhat, national security concerns and racially biased culture. Immigration debates today reflect many of the same debates of the past, but there are some major differences. The world is smaller, globalization has opened borders, and there is massive migration of labor all over the world, as corporations seek less expensive labor. While this pattern has existed in the past, it has greatly accelerated in the past twenty years.
In response to Georgiann’s comment, I agree that the concerns regarding illegal immigration remained mostly the same for the US government, as they were in the past ( based on the reading), but I would add the fact that the process itself of illegal immigration, from an immigrant perspective, has been greatly transformed.
Today, trafficking in human beings, including work migration, adoption and prostitution, is the third largest moneymaking venture in the world, after illegal weapons and drugs. Perhaps one hundred years ago, Filipino immigrants were treated better than Mexican immigrants, but answering that question today requires a more careful study of the conditions of today. When discussing Filipinos, are we discussing farm workers in the San Joaquin Valley of California, nurses in Chicago, domestic workers in Los Angeles or sexually abused “lap dancers”? We need to examine the specifics of time and place and the changes in economics, politics, and culture. I would disagree that Filipinos today are somehow better than the Mexican farm workers as a general statement, because it overlooks the gender perspective, which types of labor migration are available for immigrant women, and which ones are available for immigrant men. To what extent they are exploitative, abusive and violate the human rights?
In the recent years, illegal trafficking in people for the sex industry and cross-border transit of documented and undocumented workers both have increased. These benefit first the government of the migrant’s home country by the infusion of hard currency, as well as benefiting the illegal traffickers with the huge profits they make—all these by overexploiting people, but mostly women. The significance of the sex industry rises in the absence of other sources for job, profit and revenue.
Many studies have point to the sexualized image of Asian women and the stereotype model of submissive wife. Many articles describe the plight of women attracted by advertisements in the newspapers to work aboard and which are trapped in the sex industry. Mail-order brides, traffic in women and the international migration of overexploited women are all part of the Asian American immigration. The global “labor chain” of children and elders care which has its main destination America starts with Filipino and other Asian women. Their experience in demystifying the success of Asian Americans demonstrate how intersection of gender and class would be the starting point on understanding the complexity of ethnic and immigrant relations in America.
Going along with Megan, I also think it is very contradictory as well, when people say they like legal immigrants but not illegal immigrants. I think this point of view can be partially understood by Nagi’s discussion in the beginning of chapter two with the Immigrant Act of 1924, and the use of ‘illegal aliens’ and ‘undocumented immigrants’ in classifying illegal immigrants in the United States. I think these terms during this time became a major part of defining the immigration influx of different ethnic backgrounds including Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, and Mexicans. As a result, many people were socialized what was defined as illegal aliens and undocumented immigrants. However, the use of illegal aliens and undocumented immigrants were predominately only associated with negative undertones. For example, Nagi mentions many people thought illegal aliens and undocumented immigrants were dangerous. This, however only hides the real reasons of why immigrants come to the United States, which includes looking for employment, establishing a better future for themselves and their families. These negative undertones of using illegal aliens, and undocumented immigrants helped maintained prejudice and discriminatory acts of the 1930’s and justified the very poor treatment of some illegal immigrants by the INS and border patrol.
I also believe these negative perceptions of illegal immigrants have transcended among the majority of people’s ideas regarding immigration today. Some of the reasons illegal immigration occurs today is because discriminatory practices continue to prevent certain groups of people to come here legally or making it very difficult to do so, and these people are mostly only need of a job. Like discussed in last weeks class, I really would like to see more spotlight on the corporations that hire illegal immigrants. Instead of illegal immigrants being scrutinized, corporations should be penalized for hiring illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are not exploiting these corporations but rather they are helping these corporations by working for low wages, which ultimately helps the United States economy. In addition, I believe illegal immigration would not occur if these individuals were not in poor economic conditions in their own country, which again are many relative points that people today do not consider when blaming the illegal individual in the United States.
There is a really good book on the "unintended consequences" of the efforts to curb illegal immigration by Doug Massey et al called Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration (see http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Smoke-Mirrors-Immigration-Integration/dp/087154590X). I may have put a plug in for this once before.
On another note, I read something from Pierette Hondagneu-Sotelo last year that left an impression on me. She argues that although we commonly think of immigrants as coming from the most impoverished nations, the majority actually come from countries that are 1) undergoing rapid development and/or 2) already interconnected with the U.S. economy. In other words, immigrant-sending countries tend to be at least developed enough to be active in the global labor market. If you look at the UN list of the 50 poorest nations, you'll see that very few of them are represented heavily in the U.S. foreign-born population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0908763.html). Again, this speaks to the idea that immigration has everything to do with the political economy. And there is really no better paradox demonstrating this than the focus on illegality among Mexicans. Framing Mexican immigrants as desperate criminals diverts attention away from the fact that NAFTA has had some seriously negative consequences on the Mexican economy.
I agree with Cezara in that history goes in a spiral pattern that means that history is repeated but changes each time as circumstances change. She mentioned three circumstances that can shape it: Labor demands, National security, and culture.
There are several examples of this such as the Bracero program and now the proposal of the temporary workers program or the internment of the Japanese during WWII and the recent special registration acts. In other words, the United States seems to have learned nothing from its past.
However, I do not agree with the idea that the Filipinos were treated better than the Latinos are now. It is just like how today we cannot say, that Muslim males who had to register are being treated better than the Japanese, because both have suffered in different ways.
Yet, I do agree that the American media does make the Immigration issue black and white. We can see that in always referring to “illegal immigrants” as Mexicans. It seems to play out in todays media that the only “illegal immigrants” in the United States are Mexicans. However, we know that is not true. It could be that they make a large portion of the illegal immigrants but they are not the only ones. Another way the issue is made into a black and white issue is the terminology used. I agree with Meagan in that the term “illegal” does allow people to see it as black and white. They are illegal ie they broke the law, but as we have heard in class or know by our own experience it is much more than that. People come to the United States for several reasons, not just to break the law.
Therefore, I think, unless we address those problems, illegal immigration will not stop, no matter what the United States government does.
The solutions the United States government has proposed have all been proved to fail.
The Bracero program
The Amnesty Reagan gave and Clinton continued
Or border protection
What the united states should do to stop people from coming is to reflect on how they play a role in the poverty that nations suffer. What actions can they take that deal specifically with initiatives they are involved in, in other nations. I don’t think that to end illegal immigration, the United States has to cure poverty around the world. What I am advocating is that the United States just reverse initiatives it has currently implemented in other nations that have proven to only worsen the economy of other nations or that has allowed for an authoritative government to continue to rule.
In the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero
“no human being is illegal”.
Ngai’s book does an excellent job of showing how this seemingly all-important distinction between legal and illegal is actually quite flexible, and today’s system is largely a product of our nation’s economic, political and racial history. And, as the original post pointed out, this book also illustrates quite well that the immigration debate has not changed much over time. For all of these reasons, I agree that I do not quite understand people who place such emphasis on the legal/illegal distinction (“I support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration.”). Would they then simply support a program to increase visas to accommodate all people who want to immigrate and programs to make the process faster and easier? Is that all it would take to pacify their concerns? Somehow, I doubt that, but all it really takes to turn an illegal immigrant into a legal immigrant is a piece of paper from the government, right? Save for those individuals who are illegally brought to this country forcibly or against their will (as Cezera mentioned), I have a hard time believing that many immigrants would enter the U.S. illegally if there were timely, appropriate legal options available to them.
Kate and Belinda make very important points when they bring the international economic situation into the discussion. Not only would fewer people come to the U.S. if the economy in their home country was flourishing, but Americans would also likely be forced to pay higher prices for the services and goods currently made so cheap by the labor of undocumented immigrants (restaurant food, meats, produce, landscaping, nannies, house cleaning, etc.). If fewer people were willing to work in such low-wage, temporary, dangerous and/or informal jobs, prices would inevitably go up as higher wages and better working conditions would be necessary to attract workers. It seems to me that most American’s do not realize how much they rely on the low prices and availability of products made possible by undocumented immigrants who cannot strike, organize, or otherwise fight for reasonable wages and benefits. This creates a sort of catch-22 for the U.S. that doesn’t seem to get addressed all that often in the immigration debate.
The economics of Capitalism is what fuels this dichotomy of loving the past and hating the present. But it would be too extreme to say that economics is the only reason people immigrate; this simplifies the complications of living in a political and cultural worldwide economic system.
There are political insecurities from war ravaged nations, such as Mexicans fleeing the revolution that ultimately endangered the safety of civilians and those directly involved in the revolution/civil war. A police state may arise or corruption may infect the home country; this in itself may be too much to emotionally and socially bear. Agriculture can be affected by war that would diminish its productivity, but in times of peace, the same can happen through inefficient methods that would cause land erosion. Cultural reasons may arise, for example, wives can be avoiding domestic abuse or other socio-cultural pressures and constraints, such as escaping the harsh treatment and judgment of having children out of wedlock or being abandoned by their migrating husbands who disappear from their families indefinitely, leaving them to be “single mothers”. The reasons of immigration that don’t involve economics are numerous.
Yet we can’t turn away from the immense economic push and pull factors that are extremely significant. But as Kate pointed out, it would help us to understand the subject of immigration, and the backlash of it, by thinking about the many that do immigrate who form a different layer of imported labor. These educated immigrants (think of the doctors, engineers, and scientists) that are “flooding” the U.S for better pay, political freedom, etc. These groups are not being targeted (unless they’re Muslim) as being hindrances to our country. Many of them enter undocumented, or overstay their school and tourist visas, but there seems to be a class component dictating status and prestige that blinds many Americans to their “illegality” in comparison to the Latin American and Muslim immigrants. Can it be because we need them? We may be producing insufficient levels of American scientists and engineers in our own universities that are “not losing their jobs to immigrants”.
The cultural component must not be ignored either. Many educated immigrants are schooled with an American ideal that is ubiquitous in our universities. These immigrants are susceptible to supplant their cultures and values for American norms and customs. Manual and industrial laborers are without the privilege to have such a prestigious and luxurious opportunity. Compounded onto this that technology is making it harder to assimilate to a country that prides individualism and is permeated by techy toys that exacerbate the crucial crisis of social isolation between physical human beings. Television can make it easier to learn a language, but it also can hinder assimilation through the countless novellas (soap operas), television shows, and sports events that are not left behind through immigration with countries as close as Latin America. And it is this proximity that inhibits the Americanization that many want to impose, but will never happen completely.
This is where “racializing the specter of the illegal alien” (90) comes in. It’s a human tragedy that 400,000 out of 1.4 million Mexicans were deported throughout the depression. The fact that 60% of them were American citizens and children (72) exposes the utterly deep bigotry many Americans harbor/ed. The “Foreignness” concept illustrates the perverted mind-set that pervades and permeated mainstream America. Relations of domination and control attempt to legitimize or hide these xenophobic beliefs. Images of “them” appeals to the deep-rooted racism that is ingrained in many Americans from centuries ago. Under globalization, people’s ideas of their own “place” feel insecure (from their careers being outsourced toward other countries to their American values undergoing negative changes, etc.) and it helps construct alien identities to attack because they need a threat to protect the boundary in order to reinforce differences though transgressions of those who are unlike “them”.
As we have read, the U.S and Mexico are two political territories that are linked into one international labor market. They’ve been reducing barriers to the free flow of goods and capital for years, exacerbating it with NAFTA. Unfortunately, the attitude toward labor is a restrictive one. It exemplifies the importance governments place on human beings. It amuses me when reading that contracted labor was looked down upon enough to pass a ban on it in 1885, believing that it was contrary to the American values of liberty to pursue one’s own work without arbitrary contracts that would limit this freedom, only to discard the principle when necessary. It just seems as if many of these revolutionary ideas of freedom and liberty are thrown out of the window when it serves a convenience.
I don’t think we can deny that we, as Americans, have a certain air of arrogance that surrounds us, as if our values are the epitome of human civilization. We tend to contradict ourselves many times over, especially when economics is involved. But it may be wise to remember that the whole world isn’t trying to come to America, we tend to forget that instead of immigrating, most foreigners stay and endure the hardships of their countries.
I like what Julie said about making it easier for illegal's to become legal. If it were easier to come to the U.S. as a legal immigrant we wouldn't have so many issues with illegal immigrants, but I don't believe that all the people who claim they have no problem with legal immigrants really believe what they are saying. All immigrants have been scapegoats for economic and political issues throughout the history of America from the Germans and the Irish to the Itialians and the Greeks and now the Muslims and the Mexicans, all scapegoats regardless of their legal status. The fear goes deeper that just jobs; it's a fear about the changes that take place in our culture. American's are all secretly afraid that immigrants won't assimilate into our culture, instead they will change it into thier culture. It's silly because culture's all over the world are all changing all the time because of globalization, so it's pointless to be afraid of change that is bound to happen. And throughout our immigrant history, there has been assimilation of immigrants eventually. I confess that I am mixed up in my own mind about whether or not I would really want the U.S. to be more open to immigrants. It would get rid of a lot of the problems that come with illegal immigration, but there is a fear of the unknown: what would happen to our economy? Would it really be able to sustain more and more people?
Another thing Julie mentioned about American's being dependant on immigrants caught my attention. It seems to me that the U.S. is exploiting the poorer countries that a lot of immigrants are coming from. We could eliminate a lot of our issues with immigration if we stopped exploiting those countries, and helped them become more autonomous and encouraged political and economic stability in those countries. That would create less of a reason for people to wantt ot come to the U.S. in the first place, but then who would we make money off of? How could we stay on top if there's nobody at our feet?
Here's yet another example of our conflicted feelings regarding Mexican migration: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703180177mar18,1,999092.story
Post a Comment