In Ngai's Illegal Immigration & The Making of Modern America, we turn our attention (South of the U.S. Border) to our nations "undocumented" or "illegal" aliens--persons living in the United States without permission from the U.S. Government. Nagai's focus charts the historical orgins of an "illegal alien" in American law and society and the emergence of illegal immigration as the "central problem" in U.S. Immigration Policy in the twentieth century. As Ngai states,
"what it is about the violation of the nation's sovereign space that produces a different kind of illegal alien and a different valuation of the claims that he or she can make on society? Unauthorized entry, the most common form of illegal immigration since the 1920s, remains vexing for both state and society.
Undocumented immigrants are at once welcome and unwelcome: they are woven into the economic fabric of the nation, but as labor that is cheap and disposable. Employed in western and southwestern agriculture during the middle decades of the twentieth century, today illegal immigrants work in every region of the United States, and not only as farmworkers. They also work in poultry factories, in the kitchens of restaurants, on urban and suburban construction crews, and in the homes of middle-class Americans. Marginalized by their position in the lower strata of the workforce and even more so by their exclusion from the polity, illegal aliens might be understood as a caste, unambiguously situated outside the boundaries of formal membership and social legitimacy. 
At the same time, illegal immigrants are also members of ethno-racial communities; they often inhabit the same social spaces as their co-ethnics and, in many cases, are members of "mixed status" families. Their accretion engenders paradoxical effects..."
4 comments:
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 1930’s – 1950’s 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 “white” 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.”
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.
It is interesting what G. Bruton was stating because she mentions many measures being discussed by the U. S. government to stop illegal immigration. In my opinion, if countries instead of building boarders, build bridges, the immigration issue would be less of a problem. From an immigrant stand point, they would like to go back to their homeland, where in many instances they have their home, family and way of living. It is not easy to adjust to a completely different way of living and deep down in their heart they want to go back to their home country. The problem is that there is no way of surviving in ones own homeland. Therefore, many people have to immigrate.
In regards to the comments that “immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans,” it might be accurate for many reasons one is that the American is not willing to work at a restaurant or on the field. Then, there is the immigrant who is able to do the same job as in their homeland country, but for a much higher pay. The immigrant is willing to take the job and bring food on the table to their family.
U.S policies are inadequate in really assessing the real issues. The belief that a huge fence will solve any problems is another bad decision made by politicians. Most of the policies that have been mentioned in the above comments are based on small minded beliefs and minimal thought. The U.S seems to favor immigration only when it is beneficial for the economy. The people that are truly being affected aren’t not being heard.
Post a Comment