Why I Marched on May Day
Reading the news is one way to gauge what's going on in the world; reading the public's reaction to the news is another barometer. A few weeks ago, after reading a news article on the Knoxville News-Sentinel website about an immigration raid, I scrolled down again to see readers' responses to this particular story. There was a lot of the same worn-out rhetoric about "illegals," but that wasn't what got me. What made me sick to my stomach was reading one person's comment that said – and I quote directly: "First time, deport them, second time shoot them in the head, won't be no third timers and the first timers will cease to exist pretty quick. Take a lesson from China on how to protect our borders."
I flagged the post as "inappropriate," and it has since been removed, but that horrible notion still exists in the mindset of that person and goodness knows who else. And the very fact that rhetoric like this exists in the year 2010 of the Common Era is frightening.
The issue of migration is complex, involving a great many economic, historical, and social factors. But you don't have to get into a jargon-filled spiel to recognize that some of the steps being taken to "correct the problem" are severely out of hand. It simply cannot be overstated that this isn't about political leanings; this is about basic human rights.
The biggest controversy in the recently-passed Arizona law is asking what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" as to a person's immigration status. Allegedly this is not going to result in racial profiling of any kind. (My response to that would normally be, "Right, and my shoes speak Welsh," but apparently shoes are part of what they're going to use to determine who looks "illegal." I wish I were joking.) Among other things, the law also makes it a fineable offense for a documented("legal") immigrant to go around without their paperwork. I've heard some people compare that to provisions that you have to carry proof of insurance with you while driving, but a police officer isn't supposed to ask proof of insurance when you're walking.
I ask this quite earnestly: How are you supposed to know by looking at someone whether or not they're an immigrant? The logical extension of this law – if it were truly being implemented fairly across the board – would be that everyone, including citizens, would have to carry proof of their citizenship or legal immigration status at all times. That's called fascism. Aren't we supposed to be against this sort of thing? Well, since they're talking very seriously about biometric ID cards, maybe I can't argue that one anymore (and for the record, I find that extremely frightening).
The question of calling people who enter the United States without authorization or overstay their visas "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" or simply "illegals" versus "undocumented immigrants" is not just an issue of semantics or trying to be PC. Undocumented and unauthorized are not perfect terms, but they at least acknowledge that the nature of the imposed status is whether or not they have papers or formal authorization to be in a particular place. The word alien simply means non-citizen, but the connotation of the word is dehumanizing because it conjures up images of something downright otherworldly. Illegal alien is a term used by the INS to describe immigrants who have been convicted of felonies; it is not a blanket term for anyone residing in the country without authorization. Illegal immigrant is a relatively mainstream term, unfortunately, but it still conjures up images of criminality when immigration is a civil, not criminal, issue (although the Arizona law has changed that, which is a problem in and of itself). Of course, when "illegal" modifies the word "immigrant," at least then the main descriptor is immigrant, maintaining some semblance of the personhood of the individual(s) being described. "Illegal" as a noun, by contrast, completely dehumanizes them and implies that the very nature of the person is their "illegality."
A Republican congressional candidate recently asked, without irony, "If I can microchip my dog, why can't I microchip an illegal?" This shows just how dehumanizing "illegal" as a noun can be, and this is where the rhetoric gets really dangerous. In almost every instance of human rights abuse, the oppressed persons are described as having been "treated like animals." When you look at how easy it is to jump from immigrants to dogs, are we going to then associate them instead with cattle? With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that folks like the aforementioned guy who wants to take a cue from China on immigration policy can be so quick to forget that immigrants, authorized or not, are human beings? Who's next on the list of people it's going to be okay to talk about like this?
This issue is personal for me in the sense that I know several undocumented students (that's right, kids, some undocumented immigrants go to college despite the fact that they are ineligible for federal and state aid, not to mention most scholarships... and no, they aren't using any of your tax dollars to do it), and I've had the pleasure of taking an entire course about migration where we did discuss the broader issues (and yes, that's where I've learned a lot of this). But even for those of you reading for whom this is not overtly personal, many of the problems at hand have immense ramifications for everyone, not just immigrants.
This is one of the (many) reasons I marched on May Day.
"The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life." Jane Addams
I flagged the post as "inappropriate," and it has since been removed, but that horrible notion still exists in the mindset of that person and goodness knows who else. And the very fact that rhetoric like this exists in the year 2010 of the Common Era is frightening.
The issue of migration is complex, involving a great many economic, historical, and social factors. But you don't have to get into a jargon-filled spiel to recognize that some of the steps being taken to "correct the problem" are severely out of hand. It simply cannot be overstated that this isn't about political leanings; this is about basic human rights.
The biggest controversy in the recently-passed Arizona law is asking what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" as to a person's immigration status. Allegedly this is not going to result in racial profiling of any kind. (My response to that would normally be, "Right, and my shoes speak Welsh," but apparently shoes are part of what they're going to use to determine who looks "illegal." I wish I were joking.) Among other things, the law also makes it a fineable offense for a documented("legal") immigrant to go around without their paperwork. I've heard some people compare that to provisions that you have to carry proof of insurance with you while driving, but a police officer isn't supposed to ask proof of insurance when you're walking.
I ask this quite earnestly: How are you supposed to know by looking at someone whether or not they're an immigrant? The logical extension of this law – if it were truly being implemented fairly across the board – would be that everyone, including citizens, would have to carry proof of their citizenship or legal immigration status at all times. That's called fascism. Aren't we supposed to be against this sort of thing? Well, since they're talking very seriously about biometric ID cards, maybe I can't argue that one anymore (and for the record, I find that extremely frightening).
The question of calling people who enter the United States without authorization or overstay their visas "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" or simply "illegals" versus "undocumented immigrants" is not just an issue of semantics or trying to be PC. Undocumented and unauthorized are not perfect terms, but they at least acknowledge that the nature of the imposed status is whether or not they have papers or formal authorization to be in a particular place. The word alien simply means non-citizen, but the connotation of the word is dehumanizing because it conjures up images of something downright otherworldly. Illegal alien is a term used by the INS to describe immigrants who have been convicted of felonies; it is not a blanket term for anyone residing in the country without authorization. Illegal immigrant is a relatively mainstream term, unfortunately, but it still conjures up images of criminality when immigration is a civil, not criminal, issue (although the Arizona law has changed that, which is a problem in and of itself). Of course, when "illegal" modifies the word "immigrant," at least then the main descriptor is immigrant, maintaining some semblance of the personhood of the individual(s) being described. "Illegal" as a noun, by contrast, completely dehumanizes them and implies that the very nature of the person is their "illegality."
A Republican congressional candidate recently asked, without irony, "If I can microchip my dog, why can't I microchip an illegal?" This shows just how dehumanizing "illegal" as a noun can be, and this is where the rhetoric gets really dangerous. In almost every instance of human rights abuse, the oppressed persons are described as having been "treated like animals." When you look at how easy it is to jump from immigrants to dogs, are we going to then associate them instead with cattle? With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that folks like the aforementioned guy who wants to take a cue from China on immigration policy can be so quick to forget that immigrants, authorized or not, are human beings? Who's next on the list of people it's going to be okay to talk about like this?
This issue is personal for me in the sense that I know several undocumented students (that's right, kids, some undocumented immigrants go to college despite the fact that they are ineligible for federal and state aid, not to mention most scholarships... and no, they aren't using any of your tax dollars to do it), and I've had the pleasure of taking an entire course about migration where we did discuss the broader issues (and yes, that's where I've learned a lot of this). But even for those of you reading for whom this is not overtly personal, many of the problems at hand have immense ramifications for everyone, not just immigrants.
This is one of the (many) reasons I marched on May Day.
"The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life." Jane Addams
Labels: Immigration, Racism, SB1070
posted by E.L.K. @ 4:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home