Strangers as Neighbors: Religious Language and the Response to Immigrants in the United States.

              Strangers as Neighbors:
Religious Language and the Response to Immigrants in the United States
Project Directors
Richard Ryscavage, S.J.
Director of the Center for Faith and Public Life
Fairfield University
Jocelyn Boryczka, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Politics and Director of the Peace and
Justice Studies Program
Fairfield University
A White Paper Collection
Funded by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York in 2009
Center for Faith & Public Life
Fairfield University-1-
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Strangers as Neighbors Project ......................page 2
– Ric
hard Ryscavage, S.J., Fairfield University
The Return of Family Values: Moral Guardianship & Immigration
Reform in Contemporary Political Discourse ............................page 5
– Dr
. Jocelyn Boryczka, Fairfield University
Immigrants and Race in the U.S.:
Are Class-Based Alliances Possible? .......................................page 13
– Dr
. Ron Hayduk, BMCC-CUNY
Inclusive Religious Values in the Immigration Debate:
Locating and Assessing its Past Role and Future Impact ...........page 36
– Dr. Alethia Jones, University at Albany, SUNY
Christian Language and Political Action.....................................page 52
– Ric
hard Ryscavage, S.J., Fairfield University
Biographies.........................................................................page 60 -2- PROJECT OVERVIEW
During the past year, my colleague and co-director of this project, Dr. Jocelyn M. Boryczka, assistant professor of politics and director of the Peace & Justice Studies Program, and I led a Fairfield University academic research team which directly engaged a national group of over 100 scholars, advocates, religious leaders, and journalists from across academic disciplines and faith communities on the complexities of U.S. immigration. Funded by a planning grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York, we called this project: Strangers as Neighbors: Religious Language and the Response to Immigrants in the U.S. Through meetings with national leaders and a series of academic workshops, we examined ways in which religious language can affect the discussion of immigration. Two central questions drove the discussion in each of these contexts:
• How can faith groups, acting in concert, reframe the language of the national debate on immigration?
• What is the nature of the deliberative processes necessary to bring different faith groups together in a constructive dialogue about immigration?
With these two questions serving as a focal point, the project invited participants to consider immigration through the lens of various faith perspectives and to deliberate on how these perspectives might help transform the national discourse on this issue. The following three academic seminars were convened during the spring and summer of 2009.
ACADEMIC SEMINARS
Language and Political Transformation Workshop
This seminar focused on language and political transformation, and explored the issue of migration by including political scientists and theorists who have shaped the study of conceptual histories. This discussion focused on the concept of immigration and analyzed its role in American political discourse at crucial junctures of the immigration debate, particularly at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. This work located specific faith groups, viewed as political actors, at the center of its analysis and considered how they have shaped the discourse on immigration and could potentially reframe it. It also focused on the media as critical to the process of constructing the political discourse on immigration.
Religious Language and the Public Square
This seminar brought religious scholars and linguistics/media experts together to discuss the possibilities inherent in the religious language of different denominations, possibilities that might act in productive concert to change the national dialogue. It was recognized that this would have to be a nuanced and intentional conversation, as religious symbols simply cannot be set side-by-side. The group focused on the practices of religion and religious communities, and included an analysis of how these practices are shaped by popular media in the United States. Of particular concern was the development of a plan to address the sensibilities of religious communities in disparate regions of the U.S., as regional differences can frequently play as great a role as religious differences.
Politics of Migration and Faith Communities
This seminar examined the historical role of faith communities in the politics of U.S. immigration and their current involvement in trying to influence immigration policies. -3-
Particular attention was paid to the religious language used in past and present political dialogue. The seminar sought to sort out the best and worst practices, laying a foundation for a recalibrated effort by these religious groups to reshape the underlying terms of the national political debate on immigration.
EMERGENT THEMES
Ultimately, two overarching themes related to humanism and collaborative processes emanated from these events.
First, it was accepted that all the major religions have rich wellsprings of stories and symbols that humanize the phenomenon of migration and frame it as a way of encountering God. A religious perspective serves to create a humanistic discourse that facilitates understanding immigrants as human beings on a physical as well as spiritual journey. This vision encompasses many dimensions of religious language that could help reframe our current discourse. The idea of journey is equally important to the three Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) traditions. As a concept, “journey” recasts all of us, regardless of national origin, as people “on the move” – whether across or inside national borders, or within internal spiritual and personal ones. This perspective differs in orientation from the dominant legalistic or economic discourse. Legal discourse typically frames immigrants as either legal or illegal aliens and relies on an objective, rule-of-law approach that tends to obscure the personhood of each immigrant. Economic discourse similarly treats the immigrant as an object or individual economic unit that, in a depersonalized way, works for or against the economic system.
Second, the faith-based approach encompasses a view of the whole person that directs us away from oppositional “either/or” ways of entering the immigration debate. From a language perspective, the alternative “both/and” framework then creates space for considering how a religious starting point operates in relationship to the legal and economic platforms – in ways that neither prioritize nor ignore either of them. The “both/and” approach further changes how we consider the process for dialogue around immigration by emphasizing the deliberative means for public discourse on contentious issues. When the basis for engagement acknowledges the rich differences in identity, beliefs and backgrounds that constitute humanity under God, it leads to a more inclusive context for rigorous debate.
KEY FINDINGS
The project’s deliberations indentified six key findings around religious language
and immigration:
• the significance of personal experience as conveyed through stories and narrative;
• the pivotal importance of “home” in the immigration debate;
• challenges and opportunities for engaging members of faith communities;
• the role of fear in immigrant and non-immigrant communities;
• the powerful force of law as dominating the current discourse on immigration; and
• the marginal role of religious language in the media.
Addressing these key findings may provide an alternative way for the humanistic perspective of faith-based communities to enter into the national discourse on -4- immigration, rather than limiting the conversation to the dominant legalistic approach. To explore these ideas in greater depth, I am pleased to introduce the following four papers, which resulted from the Spring/Summer 2009 Academic Seminars. They are:
The Return of Family Values: Moral Guardianship & Immigration Reform in Contemporary Political Discourse by Jocelyn Boryczka, Ph.D. assistant professor of politics and director of the Peace & Justice Studies Program, Fairfield University
Immigrants and Race in the U.S.: Are Class-Based Alliances Possible? by Ron Hayduk, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College of the City University of New York (CUNY)
Inclusive Religious Values in the Immigration Debate: Locating and Assessing its Past Role and Future Impact by Alethia Jones, Ph.D., assistant professor, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, SUNY
Migration and Faith: Religious Language in the Public Square by Fr. Richard Ryscavage, S.J., professor of sociology and director of the Center for Faith and Public Life, Fairfield University.
CONCLUSION
Our work this year through the Strangers as Neighbors project strongly suggests that a faith-based perspective emphasizing humanism and the search for the common good allows for a more collaborative discursive environment, which could shift us away from the usual “winner-takes-all” atmosphere more commonly found in a highly charged political discourse. More broadly, the project has aimed to lift up the religious dimension of the American political tradition as a means for reimagining how we, as a nation, might approach the immigration issue.
Going forward, there is a need to further assess and test our hypothesis that debating immigration within a religious perspective will shift the nature of the discourse, which, by becoming more civil and humane, will serve to increase the likelihood of participants finding a common ground. A key question driving our further investigation is: Does the religious tradition that is so richly embedded within American political culture offer an effective framework for overcoming the polarizing public discourse dealing with immigration?
Richard Ryscavage, S.J.
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT
December, 2009
rryscavage@fairfield.edu
-5-
THE RETURN OF FAMILY VALUES:
MORAL GUARDIANSHIP & IMMIGRATION REFORM
IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL DISCOURSE
Jocelyn Boryczka
Fairfield University
Nearly a thousand people marched through downtown Phoenix, Arizona on Sunday, April 19, 2009, to celebrate Cesar Chavez’s legacy. The United Farm Workers of America organized this march, as the last of many rallies held recently in various states, to draw the Obama Administration’s attention to the need for affordable and accessible immigration reform for more people.1 Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, a Democrat from Chicago’s Fourth District, began a national tour in December 2008 with the hope of generating a broad coalition supporting immigration reform, similar to that mobilized during the Civil Rights movement.2 This “Family Unity” Immigration Outreach tour visited evangelical and Roman Catholic churches where clergy from many denominations as well as Muslim imams were in attendance. This interfaith coalition advocates for immigration policies that preserve family unity, a message that resonates across religious, ethnic, racial, and political lines. Both of these efforts represent the Obama Administration’s strategy to shift some of the political burden for immigration reform to advocates representing these constituencies. President Obama spoke on this issue in June 2009 and his Administration began working with groups to advance legislation to be introduced in Spring 2010.3 Immigration, as suggested by the United Farm Worker and “Family Unity” campaigns, is an issue where politics intersects with religion to create the possibility for likely and unlikely allies to join forces for inclusion and social justice.
The project outlined in this working paper turns particular attention to the intersection of religious and political discourse in the American political script around immigration, in order to address the question: How can religious discourse facilitate changing the way people, as members of a political community, understand immigration in the United States? Particularly, what are the dualistic operations within both discourses that influence people – whether progressive, moderate, or conservative – to choose one side or the other in the immigration debate? Concepts such as virtue and vice, which operate in both religious and political discourses, can help us understand how moral beliefs undergirding various social constructions of immigrant categories keep this debate polarized and, therefore, stagnant in terms of the alternatives and solutions entertained by the people, politicians, and policymakers.
1 “Hundreds Turn Out for Phoenix March.” Associated Press. 20 April 2009. www.kswt.com/global/story.asp?s. (April 21, 2009). The relation of labor to this struggle extends well beyond the United Farm Worker union. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win Foundation, two major labor federations, have joined forces to push for comprehensive immigration reform aimed at addressing the rising number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. estimated at 11.9 million in 2008.
2 Julia Preston. “Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority.” The New York Times. 9 April 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09/immigr.html. (April 21, 2009).
3 Ibid.-6- Negative and positive stereotypes about immigrants abound, often correlating with the moral value attributed to a particular group in terms of what they can contribute to the American economy. Asian immigrants, for instance, are often welcomed and seen as hard workers who come to the United States legally, usually to work in the technology sector. Mexican immigrants, regardless of their citizenship status, are negatively viewed as “wetbacks” stealing American jobs. Arab immigrants, post-9/11, now incur extensive oppression. Often viewed as terrorists, they are held under the most serious scrutiny and suspicion by the American government. The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) became the starting point for further federal, state, and municipal laws targeting noncitizen immigrants, denying them rights to political association, free speech, due process, and privacy. The resulting “new immigrant profiling” intensified the suspicion already associated with various immigrant groups, particularly Muslim and Arab immigrant men, many of whom authorities detained and held without charges in the immediate wake of 9/11 (Krestsedemas 2008). One aspect of this project aims to look at how concepts such as virtue and vice operate within this discursive space to justify categorizing immigrants in ways that deny them full humanity and place them under suspicion.
Various religious groups employ welcoming initiatives and curricula to offer people alternatives – in and outside of their synagogues, mosques, and churches –for rethinking the relationship of immigrants to their communities. These efforts reflect the important fact that many Christian, Jewish, and Muslim groups, contrary to popular perceptions linking religion to conservatism, collectively organize and advocate to advance rights and protections for immigrants in the United States (Hondagneu-Sotelo 2008). Addressing these stereotypes plays an important role in these efforts which, among other things, focus on humanizing these “strangers” to American society.
This project will focus on material from welcoming initiatives and curricula to examine the potential use of language to shift perceptions of immigrants, in order to advance social justice and inclusion. “Welcoming the Stranger” initiatives hold in common a faith-based claim to seeing others as human beings sharing in a similar journey. Such programs often begin with quotes from different religious texts that similarly reflect a commitment to welcome people outside their own communities. The “For You Were Once a Stranger: Immigration in the U.S. Through the Lens of Faith” handbook created by Interfaith Worker Justice, for instance, introduces its approach by clearly communicating the following examples:
• The Hebrew Bible tells us: ‘The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’ (Leviticus 19:33-34);
• In the New Testament, Jesus tells us to welcome the stranger (cf. Matthew 25:35), for ‘what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me’ (Matthew 25:40);
• The Qur’an tells us that we should ‘serve God…and do good to…orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer that you meet, [and those who have nothing]’ (4:36); and
-7-
• The Hindu scripture Taitiriya Upanishad tells us: ‘The guest is a representative of God’ (1.11.2).4
This religious perspective forms the foundation for the “Welcoming the Stranger” initiatives that, depending on the faith tradition, work from a shared premise which facilitates interfaith coalitions that can advance comprehensive immigration reform.
Faith-based initiatives have popped up around the country during the past few years to challenge the dehumanizing construction of immigrants as either “legal” or “illegal,” “documented” or “undocumented” – categories that beg the question: Can a person be “illegal”? The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), for example, takes on this framing in its interactive “What it Means to Welcome the Stranger” curriculum. Such efforts collectively represent how religion can offer an alternative way into the political discourse about immigration by interjecting the value of the human being. The latter is lost when framing a person – not their actions – as illegal. The “illegal” moniker locates an already vulnerable population in a category permanently outside the social contract and, thereby, less human than those considered “legal” and “citizens.” The ethos of welcoming the stranger, found in the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu faiths, indicates a moral imperative to bring immigrants into American society. This viewpoint creates a counterweight to rhetorical imperatives that justify building a 700-mile border wall, increasing border security, and increasing Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids on homes and workplaces. In short, the religious perspective’s emphasis on valuing human beings, treating them with dignity, and embracing outsiders suggests the humanizing impact as a powerful alternative to the dehumanizing dominant discourse that characterizes and identifies the immigrant as criminal, invader, and/or diseased.
Examining curricula such as HIAS’ will facilitate answering the question, what can we learn from these religious contexts to inform broader political change, with particular attention to the moral dynamics undergirding the social construction of immigrants?
Additionally, I plan to locate these materials within a broader political context by examining other documents, positions, policies, pieces of legislation, and political speeches. In particular, I will explore the language of various anti-immigration forces to identify the moral concepts and stereotypes upon which they rely to counter pro-immigration efforts. Also to be examined will be the discourse of more recent major political players including former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, key debates around major immigration legislation, and public statements by religious leaders from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities. Together, these materials will provide a means for parsing key discursive operations within the current language of religious and political discourse.
Methodologically, this project will use the conceptual histories approach that conceives of political concepts as “essentially contested,” or key elements in understanding how people create political change.5 This approach spotlights contradictions between
4 “For You Were Once a Stranger: Summary and Users Guide.” Interfaith Worker Justice. www.interfaithworkerjustice.org. (August 26, 2009).
5 W.B. Gallie introduces this position in “Essentially Contested Concepts,” in The Importance of Language, ed. Max Black (Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962), 121-146. Other theorists apply this approach to -8- actions and ideas or beliefs by locating concepts in relation to political actors and historical contexts. Language then constitutes the political world to the same degree as observable actions such as a voter pulling the lever on election day or soldiers marching into battle. James Farr refers to this as “the linguistic constitution of politics.”6 This conveys how political figures use specific concepts to influence, negotiate, and alter the course of events given changing historical circumstances that determine different directions of language usage. Specific concepts, importantly, have a corresponding vocabulary that creates a shared set of meanings and a constellation of beliefs. Concepts, as such, then track change when a political context stretches the human imagination to the point that current frameworks, beliefs, actions, and practices no longer meet the demands of the existing belief system. At these points, contradictions between political action and beliefs often arise and can be captured by observing how political actors struggle over specific concepts related to the set of beliefs being contested. This offers us the opportunity to identify how concepts contribute to political change. Significant enough political contests can lead to revisions in how members of a community understand certain political concepts. This approach to language as essential to political transformation facilitates tracking conceptual change at critical junctures such as the one forming around the greatest wave of immigrants, with legal outnumbering the illegal, to the U.S. since the 1920s.
A promising area of analysis for this process that brings together political and religious discourse in this developing pro-immigrant movement for inclusion and social justice centers around the role and construction of women who, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, represent the virtuous moral guardians of their families and cultures. The “Family Unity” tour, led by Representative Gutierrez, in many ways capitalizes on the family-values position embraced, though in very divergent ways, by both progressives and conservatives from a wide range of religious backgrounds. At these church meetings, legal immigrants give testimony to the challenges confronted by their families, torn apart by the deportation of some members. Such stories evoke compassion in favor of pro-immigration reform that will “Keep Families Together” as one sign read at the La Placita Church meeting in Los Angeles in March 2009. The recent increase of illegal immigrants (though none of them are invited to speak at these meetings) raises deep concerns about the impact of deportation on family life.7 The Family Unity tour highlights an issue central to the broader debate. News coverage of the march in Phoenix organized by the United Farm Workers, for instance, spotlighted women such as Lucia Vergara, whose husband currently faces deportation.8 Deportation of illegal immigrants and its impact on families political concepts. See Hanna Fenichel Pitkin’s Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972); William Connolly’s The Terms of Political Discourse (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); and Political Innovation and Con­ceptual Change, eds. Ball Terence, James Farr, and Russell L. Hanson (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
6 “Understanding Conceptual Change Politically,” in Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, 24-29.
7 Jason DeParle. “Downward Path Illustrates Concern About Immigrants’ Children.” The New York Times. 19 April 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/. (April 21, 2009). See the recent study for further in­formation, Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States.” Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, April 2009.
8 Omadelle Nelson. “Groups March for Immigration Reform.” KPHO.com. 20 April 2009. www.kpho.com/print/19225198/detail.html. (April 21, 2009).-9-
redeploys a family values argument with the potential to allow often-polarized groups from the left and right to come together in reforming immigration policy.
Ironically, an appeal to families and motherhood also arises from the anti-immigration groups such as the Arizona-based Mothers Against Illegal Aliens. Before disbanding, this organization made extremist claims that America is at war with Mexico, which it said was trying to take the nation over through the vast number of illegal “aliens” coming across the border. The threat to children and families anchored their position as conveyed by its mission to provide “up-to-date information on the growing illegal alien problem and how it affects every aspect of your life and that of the lives of our children.”9 The protective role of mothers framed this position, “THEREFORE, it is up to a mother to protect her family, and it is a family’s job to protect each other. Members and families of MAIA are NOT only mothers; they are fathers, sisters, brothers and legal citizens of America.”10 This nativist appeal to protecting America from immigrants who threaten the “American way of life” taps into a central theme of moral guardianship in the nation’s political script. Such anti-immigrant positions will inform this project to help determine the ways in which appeals to family values operate in the political discourse around immigration reform.
The Family Unity Tour and Mothers Against Illegal Aliens, though to very different ends, each derive moral authority from implicit and explicit appeals to motherhood and the guardianship of the family. Religion and politics intersect in this discourse around moral guardianship, a critical theme in the American political script. Female virtue – basically defined as the standards of excellence established by the political community for women – often plays a part in explaining how American women gained political status as protectors of the family. The private spheres of tradition, religion, and morality grants women the virtue to anchor the nation against the political and economic cycles of change inherent in liberal democracy and market capitalism.11 Feminist historians capture this dimension of women’s political role in various ways reflecting historical contexts that range from the Republican Mother and Wife to the Victorian era Traditional Woman to the New Woman of the 1950s. I use the term moral guardianship to capture a shared dimension underlying these historical symbols of women that convey a theme running through the American political script: female moral virtue, regardless of changing political contexts, entails a double burden of moral responsibility that extends from the private sphere to the common good and becomes a type of civic obligation.
9 “Mothers Against Illegal Aliens – MAIA Mission.” http://mothersagainstillegalaliens.org/site. (April 21, 2009).
10 Ibid.
11 Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America captures the shift of moral and civic virtue to the private sphere amidst the chaos of Jacksonian democracy when, not coincidentally, immigration and migration played a cen­tral part in the nation-building process. While economic virtues fell to public man, women became the keep­ers of moral and civic virtue in large measure due to their relationship to religion. Tocqueville captures the expansive implications of the double burden of moral responsibility assigned to women by identifying them as the ones who shape mores or moeurs, “the habits of the heart…the sum of ideas that shape mental habits…the whole moral and intellectual state of the people.” [Democracy in America, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988), Vol. II, 527]. For a complete gendered analysis of male and female virtue and vice in Tocqueville’s Democracy, see Jocelyn M. Boryczka “The Separate Spheres Paradox: Habitual Inat­tention and Democratic Citizenship,” in Feminist Interpretations of Alexis de Tocqueville eds. Jill Locke and Eileen Hunt Botting (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press, 2009), 281-304.-10- This project will engage in a gendered analysis of the discourse around moral guardianship, women, and families in the pro and anti-immigration contexts. The goal is to understand how languages of morality that emanate from religion inform the politics of groups mobilizing to impact immigration reform in 2009 and beyond. Doing so, I think, helps to locate this deployment of family values positions which reflect the historical theme of moral guardianship within the broader American political script. The family values position, on both sides, will be read against alternative discursive approaches taken in welcoming initiatives and various curricula, to begin considering the strengths and weaknesses of redeploying such positions that tend towards the polarization characterized by the culture wars of the past thirty years. In this discursive context, the way in which religion – in terms of its relationship to moral beliefs captured by virtue and vice – operates within the politics of immigration informs our consideration of the transformative possibilities for the future that may involve departing from the past.
-11-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Associated Press. “Hundreds Turn Out for Phoenix March.” Associated Press.
20 April 2009. www.kswt.com/global/story.asps. (April 21, 2009).
Ball Terence, James Farr, and Russell L. Hanson, eds. Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Boryczka, Jocelyn M. “The Separate Spheres Paradox: Habitual Inattention and Democratic Citizenship,” in Feminist Interpretations of Alexis de Tocqueville eds. Jill Locke and Eileen Hunt Botting (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press, 2009), 281-304.
Connolly, William. The Terms of Political Discourse (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
DeParle, Jason. “Downward Path Illustrates Concern About Immigrants’ Children.”
The New York Times. 19 April 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/. (April 21, 2009).
Gallie, W.B. “Essentially Contested Concepts,” in The Importance of Language, ed. Max Black (Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962), 121-146.
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. What It Means to Welcome the Stranger: An Interactive Program Addressing Immigration as Jews and Americans. 2008.
Hing, Bill Ong. Deporting Our Souls: Values, Morality, and Immigration Policy (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. God’s Heart Has No Borders: How Religious Activists AreWorking for Immigrant Rights (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008).
Interfaith Worker Justice. For You Were Once A Stranger: Immigration in the U.S. Through the Lens of Faith. (Illinois: Interfaith Worker Justice, 2007).
“Mothers Against Illegal Aliens – MAIA Mission.”
http://mothersagainstillegalaliens.org/site. (April 21, 2009).
Nelson, Omadelle. “Groups March for Immigration Reform.” KPHO.com.
20 April 2009. www.kpho.com/print/19225198/detail.html. (April 21, 2009).
Passel, Jeffrey S. and D’Vera Cohn. “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United
States.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center, April 2009.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972).
Preston, Julia. “Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority.” The New York Times. 9 April 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09/immigr.html. (April 21, 2009).-12- Sojourners. Welcoming the Stranger: Toolkit for Christian Education and Action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 2008.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988).
Williams, Rhys H. “From the ‘Beloved Community’ to ‘Family Values’: Religious Language, Symbolic Repertoires, and Democratic Culture.” In Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State eds. David S. Mayer et. al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 247-265.
Vasquez, Manuel A., and Maria Friedmann Marquardt. Globalizing the Sacred: ReligionAcross the Americas (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003).
-13-
IMMIGRANTS AND RACE IN THE U.S.: ARE CLASS-BASED
ALLIANCES POSSIBLE?
Ron Hayduk
BMCC-CUNY
INTRODUCTION
The United States is experiencing the largest wave of immigration since the early 20th century – one in five people in the U.S. is an immigrant or a close relative to one. In some states and regions – most notably New York – their proportion of the population is even higher. These demographic changes are re-shaping group relations and institutions in America, which will have lasting impacts. In New York City, for example, newcomers are rapidly changing the ethnic and racial makeup of the city. Until the 1950s immigrants came predominantly from Europe. Today, by contrast, most of the immigrants are Hispanic, black, and Asian.
How is the new migrant influx affecting inter-groups relations? Is it enhancing multiracial alliances or exacerbating interethnic conflict and competition? Under what conditions does cooperation prevail over conflict? How these processes unfold will affect American political and social development well into the future.
Mass migration poses particular challenges and unique opportunities for progressives in the United States. On the one hand, immigrants are being pitted against the native-born, especially African-Americans, causing increased competition and conflict among low-wage workers. This process threatens to further fragment an already divided working class. On the other hand, new immigrants are rapidly changing the country’s ethnic make-up, creating opportunities to address structural racism and economic exploitation.
Current trends could turn out to be either opportune or disastrous. The outcome depends largely on how immigrants line up with African-Americans, and vice versa. As race continues to affect group dynamics, so racism continues to complicate immigrant political incorporation and the development of class consciousness. Because blacks suffer particularly invidious forms of oppression, attacking racism is integral to building the kind of multiracial working-class political organization that is essential to revolutionary social transformation. As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun put it, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way.”1
We begin by highlighting how the contemporary context differs from that which faced earlier immigrants, paying particular attention to the intervening struggles for civil rights and minority empowerment. We then explore factors that impede and factors that facilitate working-class multiracial alliances. We conclude by presenting a set of proposals that aim to mitigate conflict and build coalition.
1 Supreme Court Bakke case (1978).-14- A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS?
According to the Bureau of the Census, the United States will become a nation of ethnic and racial “minorities” within a matter of years. Since the 1970s, the overwhelming majority of immigrants have been so-called “people of color” – from Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa. Four states and the District of Columbia already have a larger share of minorities than non-minorities: Hawaii (75%), District of Columbia (68%), New Mexico (58%), California (57%) and Texas (52%).2 Hundreds of cities and counties are also comprised of “majority minority” populations.
Projections of such an outcome are not new; they were common at the turn of the 20th century and led to new laws in the 1920s which greatly reduced immigration and sharply restricted it to Western Europeans. Anti-immigrant hysteria took many forms, including anxiety that the newcomers would not assimilate because they spoke different languages, practiced different religions, had different customs, were not white in the taxonomy of the day, and possessed divided loyalties. While such depictions have a familiar ring today, turn-of-the-20th-century immigrants eventually “assimilated” – became white and thus American – over time.3
Present-day immigrants face hardships in some ways greater than those of their predecessors. First, they tend to be darker-skinned and hence more readily targeted for discrimination.4 Second, today’s immigrants and their children face a very different economic environment. In the past, manufacturing provided a ladder of mobility for many first- and second-generation immigrants (even as they leap-frogged over African-Americans), but recent economic restructuring and the loss of unionized manufacturing jobs has narrowed the options for newer arrivals.5 Third, the sheer volume of immigration has increased as a result of globalization, as free-trade policies have undercut the livelihoods of more and more third-world people. Fourth, reductions in government spending on domestic programs have contributed to increased competition among Latinos, Asians, native-born blacks, and low- and middle-income whites for public and private resources in employment, housing, education, health, and welfare. These contextual factors affect ethnic and race relations, and will shape American political development for years to come.6
2 Close behind are Nevada, Maryland, and Georgia at 42% each. US Bureau of the Census. “US Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million.” May 1 2008. www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html.
3 A useful distinction is sometimes made by analysts between “immigration policy” and “immigrant policy.” “Immigration policy” determines which immigrant groups are permitted to enter the United States and in what numbers. “Immigrant policies” refer to federal, state, and local laws that influence the integration or the treatment of immigrants after they have arrived. The federal government sets U.S. immigration policy. U.S. immigrant policy is comprised of various state and local provisions and programs, which are less consistent and coherent than federal policy. Of course, both immigration policy and immigrant policy flow from the larger political economy. Here we focus on immigrant policy and its impact on multiracial politics.
4 DeWind & Kasinitz 1997; Bonilla-Silva 1997; Hellman 2008. To be sure, many 19th- and early 20th-century immigrants were not regarded as “white” at the time of their arrival, but became so as a result of violent social conflict and historical processes creating different patterns of ethnic group identity (Roediger 1991; Ignatiev 1995).
5 Gans 1992; Waters & Eschbach 1995; Ness 2005.
6 Massey 2005; Marable et al. 2006; Widener 2008.
-15-
THE IMMIGRANT MOMENT: RACE AND CLASS REDUX
Today ethnic and racial minorities, many of whom are immigrants, make up the majority of the working class.7 Recent changes in the U.S. political economy (and globally) have contributed to growing inequalities, particularly between people of color and whites. Today, of 300 million inhabitants of the United States, about 36 million are poor and another 54 million are near poor, and most of these are people of color. Thus, one out of three Americans is poor, working-class, and “colored.”8 Furthermore, inequalities among racial groups are increasingly severe. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, for example, the median net worth of “Hispanic” households in 2002 was only 9% of that of “non-Hispanic White” households; the median net worth of “Non-Hispanic Black” households was lower still.9
Race and ethnicity are often used interchangeably, yet they are different. To simply substitute one for the other obscures their distinct meanings. Race is most often associated with color; however, understanding race merely in terms of skin color masks the real issues (Steinberg 2007; Hattam 2007). Following Allen (1997), we contend that race was created by ruling groups in early America who used racial laws to divide the working class. Race, therefore, is an instrument of social control. Race contributes to the oppression of the working class by subordinating black people. White workers, especially European ethnics, have been allowed to rise socially above blacks, but at severe cost to their own collective advancement.
By contrast, ethnicity typically refers to a common genealogy or ancestry and a group’s distinctive culture, language, and practices. Historically, many immigrant groups from Europe – including Irish, Italians, Jews, and Greeks – were not initially perceived as white. But as ethnic groups, rather than racial groups per se, they were able to become “white” – gain rights and privileges – and “assimilate” over time. This process has never been an option for blacks. In fact, it is anti-black racism that is the structuring ideology of race relations and social inequity in the United States. Whiteness is fluid and has maintained itself by the absorption of previously excluded groups. Today, the flip side of the “browning of America” could end up being the “yellowing of whiteness” (Yancy 2003).
Mass immigration poses challenges for racial justice advocates. Immigration could further reinforce racial polarization by pitting newcomers against the native-born, especially African-Americans. During the 1980s, riots broke out four times in black neighborhoods in Cuban-dominated Miami (provoked each time by the killing of a black man by Latino or white police officers). In the early 1990s, three days of looting and shooting in Washington, D.C. were sparked by a police shooting of a Salvadoran immigrant. In Brooklyn, violence flared between African-Americans and a Korean greengrocer, and also with Hasidic Jews. The 1992 Los Angeles riots of mostly African-
7 Of course gender issues are also integral to the socialist project. See New Labor Forum (Summer 2008) and Eisenstein (forthcoming).
8 According to a recent study published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “Bad jobs – ones that pay less than $17 an hour and provide neither health nor retirement benefits – account for about 30% of all jobs in the typical state.” This means that around 30% of Americans live in poverty, that is, around 90 million people (Fremstad, et. al. 2008).
9 “The Wealth of Hispanic Households: 1996 to 2002.” http://pewhispanic.org/. Of course, class inequalities within immigrant groups may also be wide and are concentrated spatially.-16- Americans – but also Latinos – resulted in the destruction of approximately 4,000 businesses (30% were Latino-owned, though a greater percentage of Korean-owned shops were targeted). More recently, racially motivated hate crimes have ravaged dozens of cities and towns across the United States, particularly in new immigrant destinations. Tensions are visceral between immigrants from the Caribbean and native-born African-Americans, between Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and South Americans, Chinese and Koreans, and so on.10 On top of this, anti-immigrant legislation has led to an increasing number of government-led raids on immigrants, with mass detention and deportation becoming de facto policy. Immigrants are one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. prison population and are the largest group prosecuted for federal crimes.11 At the same time, we witness a further rollback of affirmative action policy and the erosion of anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement.
Evolving race relations are affecting patterns of minority political representation and will likely continue to do so as second-generation immigrants reach voting age. Electoral districts in states and locales that were designed to be “majority minority” increasingly comprise new immigrants who compete with other minority factions for seats and votes. Similarly, the scarcity of jobs that pay a living wage pits native-born workers against the foreign born, particularly those with low levels of skill and education. And, as some immigrants intermarry and assimilate, the racial hierarchy can be kept intact or reproduced anew. 12
In some instances, newcomers distance themselves from African-Americans in order to avoid what some scholars have called “downward assimilation.”13 In their classic work on “segmented assimilation” Portes and Zhou (1993) describe the process whereby some immigrant groups – particularly members of the second generation – benefit from their parents’ relatively higher “human” and “social” capital and experience to gain a more favorable reception in the United States, thus experiencing upward mobility. On the other hand, they argue, where immigrant groups do not have access to resources and cannot build social and/or economic capital, the second generation often experiences “downward assimilation.” In some instances, poverty, inadequate services, and exposure to native-born blacks for second-generation immigrants can “contaminate” their life chances.14
10 Waldinger 1996; Hamermesh & Bean 1998; Jones-Correa 2001; Mollenkopf & Logan 2003; Rogers 2004; Steinberg 2005.
11 In 2007 alone, more than 280,000 immigrants were held in detention and 270,000 were deported; nearly two million have been deported since 1996 (New York Immigration Coalition). In March 2008, 57% of all new federal criminal cases involved the prosecution of immigrants, particularly the undocumented, an all-time high (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, TRAC, Syracuse University. www.trac.syr.edu).
12 Yancy 2003. While many Latinos and Asians report their identities as “white” on Census forms (Allen 2001), most recent immigrants identify as neither black nor white and occupy – or are ascribed – an “in between” or “transnational” space. Jones-Correa 1998; Roediger & Barrett 2002; Lien 2004; Kasinitz, et. al. 2004; Tienda & Mitchell 2006.
13 Many non-white immigrants – whose skin is dark as any African American – do not consider themselves black or the descendants of Africans. For example, darker skinned Dominicans frequently say their roots are Taino (an indigenous group on the island of Hispaniola).
14 Portes & Zhou 1993; Portes & Rumbaut 1996; 2001a; 2001b. The foregoing description of this literature is based on a summary in Nancy Foner 2005: 56.
-17-
Others have criticized this analysis as patently racist. The emphasis on such stereotypical fears fails to acknowledge, for example, how some second-generation Hispanic youth in New York City have embraced Black culture and have leveraged this choice to achieve upward mobility (Kazinitz et. al. 2002). Similarly, hybrid cultural formations, such as Reggaeton (a mixture of dancehall reggae, hip-hop, and Puerto Rican culture), show a melding of cultural exposures that defies “fixedness.” On the other hand, however, as Steinberg argues, the extension of race beyond the binary of black and white, the admission of permutations in the middle, has deflected attention away from the unique and unresolved problems of race qua African-Americans. The result is that the nation congratulates itself on its “diversity” and celebrates its “multiculturalism,” while the problems of African-Americans continue to fester from neglect (2005: 51).15
As many have noted, an ethnic group’s position in the white social order and its prospects for social mobility are not individually determined. That is, how those at the lower end of the white privilege scale perceive themselves, or how they behave, may be less significant to their racial privilege status than broadly held perceptions. For example, European immigrants that came to 19th-century America could not “become white” by simply adopting the mainstream habits. They had to be given opportunities to obtain rights and social privileges that come with being white and seize them, forging pathways to white-only occupational, educational, residential, and other settings that had previously excluded them (Allen 1997). In other words, the relative position of the racial and ethnic group reflects the dominant group’s exclusionary or inclusionary exercise of political, economic, and cultural power (powell 2007), as well as the specific power subordinate groups possess to resist or fight such domination. Structural racism, or a changing but persistent racial hierarchy (Aspen 2004), complicates the process of immigrant political incorporation and has blunted working class alliances (Allen 1997; powell 2007).16 To be sure, there is no single response to structural racism by immigrants. Nevertheless, all immigrants – in every region and in every sector of the economy – are forced to navigate the fault line of race. If immigrants and their advocates can do this by exposing and confronting structural inequality – particularly racism – we all will benefit. But how is this possible?
BLACKS, IMMIGRANTS, AND CLASS INEQUALITY
Racial dynamics are central to current debates about newcomers, particularly within the African-American community. Nowhere is this more evident than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Muhammad 2006). Many immigrants – particularly Latinos – were hired to “rebuild” New Orleans. Today, newcomers and their offspring comprise a growing proportion of the population of this once majority African-American city. The contours of the “new” New Orleans look more like a playground for the white middle and upper
15 Steinberg (2005: 42) quotes Toni Morrison’s stark challenge to advocates of multiracial alliances: “....the move into mainstream America always means buying into the notion of American blacks as the real aliens. Whatever the ethnicity or nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African-Americans.”
16 “The word ‘racism’ is commonly understood to refer to instances in which one individual intentionally or unintentionally targets others for negative treatment because of their skin color or other group-based physi­cal characteristics. This individualistic conceptualization is too limited. Racialized outcomes do not require racist actors. Structural racism refers to a system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities” (powell 2007).-18- classes than a home for blacks and people of color. This is a classic case of divide and re-conquer.
Although many immigrants share similar economic and social conditions with African-Americans, alliances do not naturally occur. They must be organized. Common class interests may exist but unless commonalities coalesce, differences will continue to divide. As history shows, race consciousness can impede class consciousness. The current anti-immigrant climate provides fertile ground for both black and white workers to displace anxieties about rising costs, declining wages, and an uncertain future onto immigrants. Sadly, the “presumed alliance” among working-class people of color has not been axiomatic (Vaca 2003). As Marx might argue, the class “in itself” has not yet become a class “for itself.”
For one thing, a persistent racial hierarchy affects immigrant incorporation. As many have pointed out, new immigrants are transforming – without erasing – racial hierarchies that characterize social structures, workplaces, neighborhoods, public agencies, and legislative bodies. As Roberto Lovato argues perceptively, a new racial and political landscape is emerging in the United States (particularly in the Deep South) in which Latinos’ subordinate status bears more than a passing resemblance to that of African-Americans who lived under Jim Crow:
Call it Juan Crow: the matrix of laws, social customs, economic institutions and symbolic systems enabling the physical and psychic isolation needed to control and exploit undocumented immigrants…. Along with the almost daily arrests, raids and home invasions by federal, state and other authorities, newly resurgent civilian groups like the Ku Klux Klan, in addition to more than 144 new ‘nativist extremist’ groups and 300 anti-immigrant organizations born in the past three years, mostly based in the South, are harassing immigrants as a way to grow their ranks (Lovato 2008).
Lovato points out that in Georgia alone, more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants live in a state of terror, fearing every time they go out and having to think more than twice before going to a hospital or health clinic because of laws requiring them to prove their legal status before they can receive state benefits.
Capital has not only helped create Juan Crow but also benefits from it. Companies employing undocumented immigrants have profited mightily from their low wages, especially in poultry, meatpacking, rugs, and tourism. The second- and third-class status of immigrant workers fits alongside the “most visible legacy of Jim Crow – Georgia’s massive and growing population of black prisoners.… By keeping down wages of the undocumented and documented workforce, Juan Crow doesn’t just pit undocumented Latino workers against black and white workers. It also makes possible every investor’s dream of merging Third World wages with First World amenities” (ibid.).
The widening class divide also breaks largely along racial lines. Although there is disagreement among economists about the overall economic impact of immigrants, there is a growing consensus that large-scale immigration heightens competition over low-wage jobs, particularly among people of color.17 Immigrants serve as scapegoats for problems
17 Waldinger 1986; Bean et al. 1993; Borjas 2005; Bacon 2007; Widener 2008.-19-
exacerbated by the current economic contraction. The rise in unemployment among blacks, for example, is due principally to the decline in manufacturing, cuts in public employment, and business attacks on unions (Schmitt 2008). Displacement by immigrants has been just a single factor in a situation whose primary causes – capitalism, greedy and unscrupulous employers, structural racism, economic restructuring, and neoliberal economic and public policy – are too easily ignored.
The need to reframe who are enemies and who are allies is urgent. Immigrants need to know that they owe a great debt to civil rights activists. One year after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law (July 2, 1964) and just months after the Voting Rights Act became law (August 6, 1965), the Hart-Celler Act of October 1965 (formally titled the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965) prohibited using race or nationality as criteria for immigration and naturalization. This abolished the nation-of-origin restrictions that had effectively limited immigration to Western Europeans since 1924.18 This opening to immigrants from third-world countries was in addition to the civil rights movement’s other victories for equal rights, in the form of anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action policy.
Immigrant progress cannot be made on the backs of blacks (or workers). Otherwise, we will end up reinforcing the subjugation of people of color by the white ruling class. Fighting for immigrant rights means also fighting against the corporate capitalist class. Business and Bush have been “pro-immigrant” for good reasons – they want a particular brand of immigrant policy that provides a pool of cheap, abundant and pliable labor. Of course, they also seek high-tech workers, teachers, physicians, and nurses, among others, who fit in the racial and class division of labor above blacks and other native workers. Clearly, workers of all stripes have an interest in fighting against such policies. Thus, we argue, immigrant rights without worker rights is a formula for disaster.19
Similarly, blacks have a stake in the emancipation of immigrants, particularly the undocumented. As David Bacon (2007: 66) observes, “inequality is the most important product of U.S. immigration policy, and a conscious one.” Essentially, U.S. immigration policy is based on capital’s need for a reserve army of cheap labor. Predictably, it
18 Under the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, “The national origins quota system classified Europeans as nationalities and assigned quotas in a hierarchy of desirability, but at the same time … deemed all Europeans to be part of the white race, distinct from those considered to be not white.... The 1924 Act also excluded from immigra­tion Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and other Asians on grounds that they were racially ineligible for naturalized citizenship” (Ngai 2004: 7). Mexicans and other Latinos from the Western Hemisphere were considered white and not limited by quotas. However, “enforcement provisions of restriction – notably visa require­ments and border-control policies – profoundly affected Mexicans, making them the single largest group of illegal aliens by the late 1920s” (ibid.) Of course, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was an earlier instance of restricting immigrants on the basis of race and national origin.
It is interesting to note that the Ku Klux Klan played a key role in passing the Johnson-Reed Act. See Cur­ran 1975: 143; Chalmers 1965: 283; Heer 1996; Miller 1998. A 1924 House of Representatives Report acknowledges this fact (Report #350, 68th Congress, 1st Session, II, 4f).
19 The need to include victims of racial oppression finds a parallel in the history of the women’s movement. The “second wave feminism” of the early 1970s was born out of civil rights struggles. Because this wave was dominated by white women, it maintained a blind spot to race and racism. Hence, the voices of black women were not heard. Subsequently, many of those voices expanded discussion and analysis of women’s oppression and how to combat it. Today, immigrant women are increasingly calling attention to the value of women’s rights.-20- reproduces inequalities and spreads the pain. Immigrants – especially the undocumented – do not have equal rights. As with practices rooted in slavery and the Black Codes, making someone “illegal” justifies exclusion and subordination. Weekly government raids on the undocumented, resulting in mass incarceration and deportations, assure that the state of terror remains unbroken (Chacon & Davis 2006). Equity as a goal in itself can foster common ground, as can the goal of secure jobs at a living wage, and rights in workplaces and communities. Successful struggles for these goals require political unity among diverse constituencies.
BUILDING BRIDGES
The plight of immigrants and their fight for equal rights has gained a sympathetic response on the part of many African Americans. Surveys show that blacks are less likely than whites to say that immigration should be cut back and are less likely to hold negative views of immigrants (even while blacks are slightly more likely than whites to believe immigrants take jobs from Americans).20 Twice as many blacks as whites think immigrants should be eligible for government-provided social services; 79% of blacks –as opposed to about half of whites – think immigrants should attend public schools; and 47% of blacks – as opposed to only 33% of whites – believe immigrants should be able to stay in the country. Similarly, most African-Americans believe that their interests and immigrants’ interests are linked.21 A recent survey of immigrants and minorities in New York City showed that blacks and immigrants (particularly of color) expressed similar concerns and ranked issues of importance in close proximity to each other.22 Blacks, however, are more likely than whites to say they or a family member have lost a job, or not been granted a job, because an employer hired an immigrant worker (22% and 14%, respectively); and blacks are more likely than whites to feel that immigrants take jobs away from American citizens rather than take jobs Americans don’t want (34% and 25%, respectively).23 Similarly, some black leaders have expressed a growing unease about immigrants or have remained silent.24
A number of African-American groups and leaders – from radical groups such as TransAfrica Forum and the Black Radical Congress to mainstrean organizations such
20 Pew Center for the People and the Press. “America’s Immigration Quandary: No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes.” March 30 2006. (http://people-press.org/report/274/americas-immigration-quandary); Leslie Fulbright. “Polls, leaders say many blacks support illegal immigrants.” San Francisco Chronicle. April 13 2006.
21 David Bacon. “Looking for Common Ground.” ColorLines. Vol 9, No. 1. Spring 2006; Mary-Frances Winters. “Why Blacks, Latinos need each other.” USA Today. April 21 2006. Chaka A.K. Uzondu. “African-Americans, Economic Well-Being, and Immigration.” United for a Fair Economy, The Radical Wealth Divide Project. April 17 2006; Ajamu Dillahunt. “Solidarity Statement to the April 10th Immigration Justice Rally.” Black Radical Congress. April 17 2006.
22 Community Service Society. “US and Foreign-Born Low-Income New Yorkers: Competition or Coalition?” New York: Community Service Society. January 2007. www.cssny.org/pdfs/uht06slides/ImmigrantSurvey.pdf
23 Carroll Doherty. “Attitudes Toward Immigration: In Black and White.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. April 26 2006.
24 Earl Ofari Hutchinson. “AWOL: Black Leaders and Immigration. Where are the Old Line Civil Rights Groups?” BlackNews.com. March 29 2006; Rachel L. Swarns. “Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Im­migration.” New York Times. May 4 2006; Yvonne Abraham. “Immigration hits home in Lynn: Blacks voice fear of a loss of jobs.” Boston Globe. April 16 2006; Valencia Mohammed. “Immigration: Where Blacks Stand.” New American Media. April 18 2006.-21-
as ACORN, Rainbow Push, the NAACP, and the Urban League – voiced opposition to proposed federal anti-immigration legislation (HR 4437) and expressed support for immigrants rights. Some groups are making concerted efforts to work more closely with immigrant rights organizations. Similarly, immigrant rights leaders and organizations, which have employed the languge of the Civil Rights movement in demostrations, are attempting to forge working relationships with black organizations, labor unions, and public officials. A central message they articulate is that immigrants are not responsible for the divisive use to which they are put by the capitalist class. Jesse Jackson has responded evoking the similar conditions of immigrants and African-Americans: “Few complain when African-Americans and immigrants are deprived of their rights and relegated to enslavement or cheap labor. But when we become too numerous, begin to demand our right to fair wages, human rights or citizenship, suddenly we are denounced as ‘undermining the economy.’”25 Such leaders hailed the immigrant-led protests of 2006 as a natural sequel to the civil rights movements of the 1960s. Some African-Americans and progressives have argued for a “neo-rainbow coalition” (Glover & Fletcher 2005), which would be led by people of color and organized around a class-based, anti-racist agenda for equal rights and social justice.
ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK?
Just when African-Americans seemed to have gained a modicum of political influence – both as elected officials and as holders of government jobs – their overall condition began to slip backward (Mollenkopf & Logan 2003; Thompson 2006). While many factors are at work in depressing real wages, the influx of new immigrants working in low-wage sectors is surely one. Studies have found that immigrants adversely affect low-wage native-born Americans, especially those with low skill and education levels who tend to be concentrated in cities with large black populations (Waldinger 1986; Bean et al. 1993; Bacon 2007). In addition, examination of particular industries reveals that some employers discriminate against blacks in unskilled work sites, preferring to hire immigrants (Kerschenman & Necherman 1991; Waldinger 1989). This research confirms the perception of many native blacks that they are losing jobs to immigrant workers (Diamond 1998; Borjas 2005). Some studies find that employers rely on informal networks when looking for new hires in immigrant-dominated sectors of the economy. Use of immigrant networks reduces the employer’s recruitment costs at the same time that it effectively excludes African-Americans and other non-immigrants from the hiring process (Waldinger 1993; 1996). As Steinberg notes, “employers who make their hiring decisions on the basis of what group a person belongs to, rather than on individual merits, are engaged in patent acts of prejudice” (2005: 47).
In addition, a rising nativism has allowed some to exploit tensions and divisions between immigrants and blacks, fostering conflict rather than cooperation. Thus, pundits and candidates, particularly associated with the Republican Party, have put forth African American spokespeople to denounce immigrants, claiming that they take jobs away from blacks, create a drain on public expenditures, and contribute to crime. Candidates
25 Jesse Jackson, Sr. “‘Si Se Puede’ means ‘We Shall Overcome.’ ” May 3 2006. Email communication from the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network. -22- like Obama, who attempt to downplay race in order to reduce conflict, may be able to build broad political support across constituencies in the short run, but because race is never far below the surface, opponents can use race to stoke fears and exploit competition to drive a wedge between voting blocs, as the 2008 presidential campaign has shown. Multiracial political alliances are fragile and problematic. Coalition partners sometimes wrongfully compromise issues crucial to African-American empowerment, such as affirmative action and the struggle for reparations. How many times do African-Americans have to hear that their time must wait in the name of “unity,” political feasibility, or expediency?
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTIRACIAL WORKING CLASS ALLIANCES26
New immigrants afford unique opportunities to foster progressive politics. As in the past, previously excluded groups have gained access to power principally through political struggle. They fought their way into the polity through political agitation, whether within the major parties or via third parties or through social movements and independent organizations. Ultimately, they needed the support of other sectors in society to win social, economic and political rights. One thing is certain: attainment of increased political clout by immigrants and African-Americans as an organized bloc is integral to achieving radical social change.
In some cases, commonalities have formed the basis for multiracial alliances – within and between pan-ethnic groups (Latinos, Asians) as well as between African-Americans and progressive whites – to wage and win significant battles, such as by increasing minimum and living wages, fighting mass incarceration, enforcing equal rights protections, improving public education and healthcare, and scoring electoral victories. Such coalitions have involved immigrant and civil rights groups, worker centers, labor unions, community-based organizations, policy groups, and even some progressive public officials.27 The growing political strength of the immigrant rights movement – which filled the streets with millions of marchers in dozens of cities across the country in 2006 – holds promise for building anti-racist, class-based, multiracial alliances. Numerous community-based and civil rights organizations that represent and provide service to newcomers have sprouted up and mobilized to fight for a broad range of social and economic rights. Some successful and innovative coalitional efforts suggest possible strategies and policy goals for a multiracial politics (Widener 2008).
David Bacon tells of one such effort, the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA). Established in 2001, the MIRA is an exemplary model that brings together
26 We prefer the term “multiracial” as opposed to “multiethnic.” The term multiethnic can lead to burying race and thus power dynamics. As for “people of color,” the advantage of this term lies in its inclusiveness and its equalizing effect. This strength, however, is also a weakness. The formulation homogenizes groups that possess different rights and social privileges. Moreover, it sometimes leads to disregarding the white working class. For example, some contend that people of color can and should organize themselves separately as a bloc to gain power. Although this position has a certain short-run merit, we believe that multiracial alliances are necessary for changing power structures. The failure to engage working-class people could cause the Left to succumb to one of the great failures of progressive movements – not confronting white supremacy. Thank­fully, as we show below, new political formations are not taking the bait and are instead building multiracial working-class alliances.
27 Martinez 1998; Forester 2004; Ness 2005; Fine 2006; Marable et al. 2006; Sen 2008; Fletcher & Gapasin 2008; Widener 2008.-23-
the growing number of Latino immigrant workers with black workers, recognizing the importance of addressing racism as a necessary precondition to achieve social justice for all. In the 1990s, casino construction began in Mississippi. As a result, Latino immigrants, along with Southeast Asians, moved into the state to work in the construction industry and also sought employment in northern Mississippi’s traditionally black-dominated catfish and chicken plants. Several years later, labor leaders, in conjunction with church and civil rights activists, joined forces to combat problems that both groups were facing. “In Mississippi, African American political leaders and immigrant organizers favor [the slogan].... ‘Blacks plus immigrants plus unions equals power’” (Bacon 2008). A key to the success of the MIRA has been its emphasis on direct action: grassroots union organizing taking place on the shop floor and pushing progressive policies through the state legislature, such as no longer requiring parental social security numbers to enroll students in public schools. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit, however, the MIRA switched its focus to reconstruction. Racial and political equity are the MIRA’s basic goals. “Finding common ground among immigrants, African Americans, and labor is the pillar of the MIRA’s long-term strategy.” As one of their members, Jaribu Hill, argues, “we have to talk about racism. The union focuses on the contract, but skin color issues are also on the table…. We are coming together like a marriage, working across our divides” (ibid.).
The Rev. Joseph Lowery was a lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. and now leads the Georgia Coalition for a People’s Agenda. He sees the millions who marched in Atlanta and across the country during 2006 as a sign that significant change is in the making. “We’ve globalized money, we’ve globalized trade and commerce, but we haven’t globalized fairness toward work and labor. The solution to the ‘problem’ of immigration and other problems is globalization of justice” (quoted in Lovato 2008). Of the relationship between American blacks and Latino immigrants, Lowery says: “There are many differences between our experience and that of immigrant Latinos – but there is a family resemblance between Jim Crow and what is being experienced by immigrants. Both met economic oppression. Both met racial and ethnic hostility. But the most important thing to remember is that, though we may have come over on different ships, we’re all in the same damn boat now” (ibid.).
Interestingly, immigrant rights advocates have employed the language and tactics of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements in struggles for equal rights and social justice. In 2003, for example, immigrant rights advocates and several labor unions (UNITE/HERE) organized an Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride – where hundreds of immigrants and their allies went from California to Washington D.C. and then New York City – which was inspired and modeled on the Freedom Rides of the 1960s civil rights movement. During the spring of 2006, millions of immigrants and their allies filled the streets in dozens of cities across the United States to protest proposed federal legislation (HR 4437) that would have criminalized the undocumented (and those who provide aid to them), and equally important, to demand equal rights and treatment. Since then, May Day has taken on greater visibility as a day marked by protesters who explicitly link immigrant rights, civil rights and anti-imperialism. Progressives of all stripes – including African-Americans – have taken stands and marched in solidarity with activists for immigrant rights to demand good jobs, social benefits, and a halt to racial profiling and -24- police brutality. For many, the link between advocating immigrant rights and attacking racial discrimination, white supremacy, and class privilege is clear.28 In the process, the civil rights framework is being transformed into a broader human rights framework.
Although there is nothing new about calls for multiracial cooperation and solidarity, the failure to create and sustain such a common front may end up being the Achilles heel that could again thwart gains for immigrants, African-Americans and working people more generally. “Universal” or “class-based” solutions must directly address racial disparities and discrimination if they are to be truly universal or advance the working class as a whole, let alone people of color. As Rinku Sen, the editor of Colorlines magazine and a long-time racial justice advocate, put it: “Policies designed without racial justice goals can actually deepen the divide, while creating the illusion that they’ve taken care of everyone.”29 Thus, racial justice goals must be at the forefront of coalition building. Because inequalities extend beyond class, we are not all in the “same boat.” Nevertheless, by taking up racial injustice as part of the struggle for full inclusion, including via reparations to reverse past exclusion, we might build a boat capable of moving us forward. There are signs that this is beginning to happen.30
For example, in New York City, several organizations have and are making concerted efforts to forge alliances between immigrant and African American organizations, particularly leaders of key immigrant advocacy organizations and civil rights groups in New York City, including the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC), the Community Service Society (CSS), the Center for Social Inclusion, and a number of unions that have diverse constituencies such as SEIU 32-BJ and HERE/Unite.31 These and other groups have held numerous meetings and organized several large-scale public conferences in recent years with the aim of “building bridges.” (The first few conferences were entitled: “Race and Immigration: Challenges and Opportunities for the New American Majority,” held on, December 9, 2006; “Building Bridges: How African-Americans and Immigrants Can Create Social and Economic Justice Together,” held on October 13, 2007; “Galvanizing Our Power for Action: Building Bridges between African-American and Immigrant Communities,” held on November 22, 2008.) These events represent the culmination of efforts particularly
28 Ness 2005; Fine 2006; Jayaraman 2005; Sen 2008; Widener 2008.
29 Sen, Rinku. “White Progressives Don’t Get It.” Colorlines. Oakland, California. January/February 2007. www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=169
30 David Bacon. “Looking for Common Ground.” ColorLines. Vol 9, No. 1. Spring 2006; Mary-Frances Winters. “Why Blacks, Latinos need each other.” USA Today. April 21 2006. Chaka A. K. Uzondu. “African-Americans, Economic Well-Being, and Immigration.” United for a Fair Economy, The Radical Wealth Divide Project. April 17 2006; Ajamu Dillahunt. “Solidarity Statement to the April 10th Immigration Justice Rally.” Black Radical Congress. April 17 2006.
31 The NYIC, comprising more than 200 member organizations representing hundreds of thousands of immi­grants in New York, was founded in 1987 to “promote and defend the rights of immigrants and their family members, improve newcomers’ access to services, resolve problems with public agencies, and mobilize member groups to respond to emerging issues and needs.” CSS is “a 160 year-old institution that has been on the cutting edge of public policy innovations to support poor New Yorkers in their quest to be full par­ticipants in the civic life of the nation’s largest city. CSS employs a variety of tools – advocacy, direct service, research and policy analysis, and strategic partnerships – to forge consensus on appropriate policy interven­tions to facilitate the economic mobility of low-income New Yorkers.” The respective quotes are from each organization’s websites. -25-
by the NYIC over the last several years to begin, “the long and necessary process of building lasting relationships between local African-American and immigrant community leaders.” Interestingly, these efforts were taken partly in response to attempts by marginal anti-immigrant groups to exploit possible tensions between immigrants and African-Americans, particularly the idea that immigrants take away jobs and economic opportunities that belong to African-Americans. According to the NYIC, they “recognized the critical importance of combating such divide-and-conquer tactics by building alliances with the African-American community, developing an understanding of the distinct and common challenges our communities face, and identifying strategies to work together. It became increasingly clear that several groups in New York City shared an interest in discussing these issues in a way where we could both acknowledge and identify conflicts between our communities but also overcome these tensions to explore common solutions for promoting social justice.”32 These efforts continue and have already born fruit in concrete programmatic and policy terms.
Clearly, no one movement can resolve or obliterate the multiple oppressions experienced by any group. Nevertheless, the immigrant rights movement can learn lessons from other movements. Although the immigrant rights movement rightly focuses on the particular challenges facing immigrants, it cannot achieve its goals without also confronting the problem of racism. Immigrant activists need to make the attack on racism a central piece of the fight for human rights.
A BETTER DEAL
Far-reaching proposals are needed to increase the political strength of the working class. For example, a full employment jobs program (similar to the New Deal Era Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration) set at living wages to (re)build infrastructure (schools, hospitals, transit, and the environment) – coupled with a guaranteed income – could provide the basis to organize class-based multiracial alliances and help mitigate tensions among ethnic and racial groups, particularly in the low-wage sector. Such proposals could be linked to winning amnesty and greater rights for immigrants – as Representative Sheila Jackson Lee proposed in 2005 – and would ensure that the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States do not compete through a back door. Some of these ideas are making their way onto the agendas of labor unions, community groups, and policy organizations, and manifesting on the ground in multiracial political formations.33
How can progressives help resolve the social and economic conflict between immigrants and blacks and advance a progressive agenda? Many proposals have been put forth, ranging from open borders to increasing worker rights to engaging in direct action. While each of them makes a contribution in its own right, they are incomplete. Each is a necessary but insufficient response to the economic, political, and racial inequities experienced by immigrants and blacks. If we heed the call by some to focus attention on providing jobs at a living wage for African-Americans, reduce discrimination in housing, and the like but fail to challenge policies that deny immigrants access to basic rights, we
32 NYIC. Conference notes. On file with the author.
33 Fine 2006; Bacon 2007; Boushey & Fremstad 2008; Fletcher & Gaspin 2008; Widener 2008, Sen 2008.-26- would get only part of the way toward achieving a progressive outcome. Similarly, if we work to organize immigrants into unions, expand worker centers, and increase immigrant wages and labor rights – but leave structural racism intact – we would only complete part of the necessary work. There are shortcomings to both approaches. The former presupposes scarcity of jobs and resources, a “zero sum game.” The latter keeps systems intact and does not challenge racial inequities.
Taken together, however, these approaches constitute a more comprehensive response to resolve the discrimination and oppression faced by both groups. Immigration, racism, and labor issues must be tackled together.
First, we call for redistributive justice. Reparations, a progressive tax structure, and a reallocation of war funding – where more than two trillion has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan alone – (along with a reorientation of U.S. foreign policy), would go a long way to build a more equitable society.
Second, we need government accountability to build a truly democratic society. Government that is responsive to working-class interests would produce jobs at living wages, rebuild infrastructure and build sorely needed public goods, such as quality and affordable housing, healthcare clinics and hospitals, schools, etc. Radical democratic governance able to meet human needs would thereby mitigate tensions between immigrants and the native born working class.
Third, we call for a massive, government-led jobs program – at a living wage – capable of putting to work the nearly one in six (17.5%) of people who are unemployed or underemployed, as recently reported by the U.S. Department of Labor.34 At the same time, we need a comprehensive guaranteed income program. Such an income support program assumes an unconditional entitlement grounded in a rights-based philosophy; it “belongs in the same league as the abolition of slavery or the introduction of universal suffrage” (Van Parijs 1992: 7). In conjunction with a full employment, living-wage jobs program, it would create upward pressure on wages and help dampen competition among people of color.
Immigration reform is not merely a “liberal” project. Current U.S. policy is rife with contradictions. U.S. neoliberal trade policies (GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, CAA, etc.) support the free movement of capital across borders, which contribute to the commercialization of land and have spurred the largest wave of migration from rural areas to cities and from country to country in human history. At the same time, U.S. immigration policy restricts the number of foreign workers admitted contingent upon capital’s need for low-wage labor (“guest workers,” a reserve army of the super-exploited). Draconian measures restrict rights and benefits or at times deny them outright, and criminalize those who arrive illegally or overstay their visa. Exposing these contradictions – and capital’s hand in shaping these policies – can provide the grounding for a working-class strategy that would transcend internal divisions.
34 David Leonhardt. “Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%.” New York Times, November 7, 2009.
-27-
Obviously, to achieve these goals the dominant ideology must be effectively challenged. A political education program cannot be left up to public educational institutions that have historically taught from a white hegemonic standpoint. The Left needs to insert new language into the civic dialogue that challenges the class- and race-obscuring way in which notions like “standards,” “accountability,” and “personal responsibility” have been traditionally deployed (Jennings 2007). Alternative modes of engagement, curriculum, organizing models, and cultural activity can help expose capitalism’s hand in oppression and at the same time inspire hope (Widener 2008). For example, advocates of multiracial coalitions have developed creative ways to identify capitalism as the real culprit that produces low-wage work, unemployment and underemployment (not to mention lack of healthcare, affordable housing, and good schools) rather than seeing an immigrant co-worker or struggling low-wage worker of color as the enemy. They flip the script. Immigrant and African-American members of the working class can be seen as allies and can struggle together in community-based campaigns against practices such as outsourcing. “Black-brown alliances” can bring super exploited blacks and new immigrants together as a class to fight against their collective and multiple oppressions and for their mutual liberation.
CONCLUSION
Immigration has significant and potentially long lasting consequences for race relations and multiracial politics in America. Although there is a growing body of literature about recent immigrants and their offspring, there is little research about how the newcomers get along with each other and with the native-born, particularly African-Americans. Nor do we know much about how immigrants relate to each other and the native-born vis-à-vis race.
Yet, millions of newer immigrants, who come mostly from Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean and Africa, are affecting the ethnic and racial composition of the U.S. population, and with it, intra- and inter-group relations. These demographic changes have significant implications for a multiracial progressive politics.
Contemporary debate about immigrants provides an opportunity to expand the conversation about race and class in America. The newcomers complicate racial categories and formation, putting them in flux, while simultaneously opening possibilities to address historical and contemporary racial inequalities.
Immigrants and their advocates would benefit from greater understanding of racism. The current nativistic backlash provides an opportunity for immigrant advocates to highlight racism’s hand in xenophobia. The challenge to immigrant advocates is to confront white supremacy and class domination in order to advance the cause of equality and social justice. Linking the struggle for immigrant rights with the steadfast African-American civil rights movement is essential to this agenda.-28- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, T.W. (1997). The invention of the white race. Verso.
Allen, T.W. (2001). “Race and ethnicity: History and the 2000 census.”
Cultural Logic, 3, 1.
Anner, John (ed). (1996). Beyond Identity Politics: Emerging Social Justice Movements in Communities of Color. Boston: South End Press.
Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, Structural racism and community building. Queenstown, Md.: Aspen Institute. 2004.
Austin, S., Wright, D., & Middleton, R.T. (2004). “Limitations of the deracialization concept in the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral election.” Political Research Quarterly, 57, 2, 283-293.
Bacon, F.D. (2007). “The political economy of international migration.” New Labor Forum, 16, 3/4, 57-69.
Bacon, D. (2008). “Black and brown together.” American Prospect. February 25.
Bean, F.D., Fossett, M.A., & Park, K.T. (1993). “Labor market dynamics and the effects
of immigration on African-Americans.” In Blacks, immigration, and race relations by Gerald Jaynes (ed.). New Haven: Yale University.
Betancur, John J. and Gills, Douglas C. (eds.) (2000). The Collaborative City: Opportunities and Struggles for Blacks and Latinos in U.S. Cities. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Bobo, Kim, Kendall, Jackie, Max, Steve (2001). “Organizing for Social Change,”
Seven Locks Press.
Bobo, Lawrence D. and Vincent L. Hutchings (1996). “Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context.” American Sociological Review, 61: 951–972.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (1997). “Rethinking racism: Towards a structural interpretation.” American Sociological Review, 63, 3, 465-480.
Borjas, G. (2005). Poverty, international migration and asylum (edited with Jeff Crisp). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boswell, Terry, and Brueggemann, John (November 1998). “Realizing Solidarity:
Sources of Interracial Unionism during the Great Depression,” Work andOccupations, v.25.
Browning, R.D.R. Marshall, and Tabb, D.H. (1984). Protest Is not Enough: The Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carmichael, Stokely and Hamilton, Charles V. (1967). Black Power: The Politics ofLiberation in America. New York: Vintage Books.
-29-
Chacon, J.A. & Davis, M. (2006). No one is illegal: Fighting racism and state violence on the US-Mexico border. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Chalmers, David Mark. 1965. Hooded Americanism: The first century of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1965. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Chang, Edward T. (July 1995). “Building Minority Coalitions: A Case Study of
Koreans and African Americans,” Korean Journal of Population andDevelopment, v.21, no.1.
Chang, Edward T., and Chung, Angie Y. (1998). “From Third World Liberation
to Multiple Oppression Politics: A Contemporary Approach to Interethnic
Coalitions,” Social Justice, v. 25, no. 3.
Chang, Edward T., and Diaz-Veizades, Jeanette (1999). Ethnic Peace in theAmerican City: Building Community in Los Angeles and Beyond. New York: NewYork University Press.
Chang, Edward T. and Leong, Russell (eds.) (1994). Los Angeles Struggles towardMultiethnic Community. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Chung, Angie Y. (1998). “Interest, Consciousness, and Power: The Formation
of Interethnic Coalitions in Post-Civil Unrest Los Angeles.” M.A. Thesis in
Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Curran, Thomas. 1975. Xenophobia and Immigration, 1820-1930. Twayne Publishers, Boston.
Delgado, Gary. (1993). “Building Multicultural Alliances: The Case of People
United for a Better Oakland,” Urban Affairs Annual Review, v. 41.
Delgado, Gary. (1997). Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing.Oakland: Chardon Press.
DeSipio, L. (2001). “Building America, one person at a time: Naturalization and political behavior of the naturalized in contemporary American politics,” in E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation, ed. Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
DeWind, J. & Kasinitz, P. (1997). “Everything old is new again? Process and theories of
immigrant incorporation. International Migration Review, 31.
Diamond, J. (1998). African-American attitudes towards United States immigration
policy. International Migration Review, 32, 2.
Fine, Janice. (2006). Worker Centers: Organizing Communities at the Edge of the Dream. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Fine, Janice (Forthcoming). “A Movement Wrestling: American Labor’s Enduring Struggle with Immigration, 1866-2007” with Dan Tichenor. -30- Fletcher, B. & Gapasin, F. (2008). Solidarity divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foner, N. (2005). In a new land: A comparative view of immigration. New York: New York University Press.
Fremstad, Shawn, Rebecca Ray and Hye Jin Rho, Working Families and Economic Insecurity (Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research 2008): www.cepr.net/documents/publications/state_2008_05.pdf
Gans, H. (1992). “Second-generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post-1965 American immigrants,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15, 173-192.
Gerstle, G. & Mollenkopf, J. (2001). E pluribus unum? Contemporary and historicalperspectives on immigrant political incorporation (eds). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Glover, D. & Fletcher, B. (2005). “Visualizing a neo-rainbow” The Nation. February 14.
Grossman, Zoltan and McNutt, Debra (Spring 2001). “From Enemies to Allies,”
ColorLines.
Gutierrez, Lorraine, Rosengrant, Ann A., Nemon, Howard, and Lewis, Edith A.
(September 1996). “Multicultural Community Organizing: A Strategy for
Change,” Social Work, v.41, no.5.
Gutierrez, Lorraine M. and Lewis, Edith A. (1994). “Community Organizing with
Women of Colour: A Feminist Approach,” Journal of Community Practice, v.1, no.2.
Hamermesh, D.S. & Bean, F.D. (1998). Help or hindrance?: The economic implications of immigration for African-Americans. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hattam, V. (2007). In the Shadow of Race: Jews, Latinos, and Immigrant Politics in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hellman, JA. (2008). The world of Mexican migrants: The rock and the hard place. New York: New Press.
Heer, David. 1996. Immigration in America’s Future: Social Science Findings and the Policy Debate. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Henry, Charles P. (1980). “Black-Chicano Coalitions: Possibilities and Problems,”
Western Journal of Black Studies, v.4. 111 | Applied Research Center
Henry, Charles P. (1991). Jesse Jackson: The Search for Common Ground. Oakland: The Black Scholar Press.
-31-
Henry, Charles P. (1994). “Urban Politics and Incorporation: The Case of Blacks, Latinos
and Asians in Three Cities,” in Jennings, James (ed.) (1994). Blacks, Latinos, andAsians in Urban America. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Hero, Rodney E. (December 1989). “Mulitracial Coalitions in City Elections
Involving Minority Candidates: Some Evidence from Denver,” Urban AffairsQuarterly, v.25, no.2.
Heskin, Allan David, and Heffner, Robert A. (1987). “Learning about Bilingual,
Multicultural Organizing,” Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, v.23, no.4.
Holloway H. (December 1968). “Negro Political Strategy: Coalition or Independent
Power Politics?” Social Science Quarterly, v.49.
Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge.
Jacobson, M.F. (1998). Whiteness of a different color: European immigrants and the alchemy of race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jennings, J. 2007. “Coalitions Between Blacks, Latinos, and Asians: A Retrospective
Look for the Future of Economic Democracy in the US.” The Black Commentator. Issue 224.
Jennings, Keith and Lusane, Clarence (1994). “The State and Future of
Black/Latino Relations in Washington, D.C.: A Bridge in Need of Repair,” in
Jennings, James (ed.) (1994). Blacks, Latinos, and Asians in Urban America.Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Jones-Correa, M. (2001). Governing American cities: Inter-ethnic coalitions, competition and conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jones-Correa, M. (1998). Between two nations: The political predicament of Latinos inNew York City. (Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J.H., & Waters, M.C., eds. (2004). Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the new second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J.H., Waters, M.C., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York: Russell Sage.
Kaufman, K. (2003). “Cracks in the rainbow: Group commonality as a basis for Latino and African-American political coalitions.” Political Research Quarterly, 56, 2 199-210.
King, D. (2000). Making Americans: Immigration, race, and the origins of diverse democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, Michael & Steven Pressman & Karl Widerquist. 2005. “The basic income guarantee and social economics,” Review of Social Economy, vol. 63(4), 587-593, December.
Lovato, Robert. (2008). “Juan Crow in Georgia.” The Nation. May 8-32- McClain, P., and Stewart, J. Jr. (1995). Can We All Get Along? Racial and EthnicMinorities in American Politics. Boulder: Westview.
McClain, Paula D., Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto, Monique L. Lyle, Shayla C. Nunnally, Thomas J. Scotto, J. Alan Kendrick, Jeffrey D. Grynaviski, Gerald F. Lackey, and Kendra Davenport Cotton (2006). “Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants’ Views of Black Americans.” Journal of Politics, 68-3: 571–584.
McCormick, J. II, and Jones, C.E. (1993). “The Conceptualization of Deracialization:
Thinking through the Dilemma,” in Persons, G. (ed). (1993). Dilemmasof Black Politics: Issues of Leadership and Strategy. New York: Harper Collins.
Marable, Manning (1994). “Building Coalitions among Communities of Color:
Beyond Identity Politics,” in Jennings, James (ed.) (1994). Blacks, Latinos, andAsians in Urban America. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Marable, Manning (1995). Beyond Black and White. London: Verso.
Marable, M., Ness, I. & Wilson, J. (2006). Race and labor matters in the new US economy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Massey, D.S. (2005). Strangers in a strange land: Humans in an urbanizing world. New York: Norton Publishers.
Massey, Douglas, Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone (2002). Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Miller, John. 1998. “The UnMaking of Americans.” International Migration Review, Vol. 32, #2 (Summer 1998)
Minkoff, Debra C. (1995). Organizing for Equality: The Evolution of Women’s andRacial Ethnic Organizations in America, 1955-1985. New Brunswick: RutgersUniversity Press.
Mohl, Raymond A. (2003). “Globalization, Latinization, and the Nuevo New South.” Journal of American Ethnic History, 22: 31–66.
Mollenkopf, J. & Logan, J. (2003). People and politics in America’s big cities: The challenges to urban democracy. New York: Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.
Muhammad, Saladin. (2006). “Hurricane Katrina: The Black Nation’s 9/11!” Socialism and Democracy, 20, 2, 3-17.
Narro, V., Wong, K., & Shadduck-Hernandez, J. (2007). “The 2006 immigrant uprising: Origins and Future.” New Labor Forum.
Ngai, M.M (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-33-
Ness, I. (2005). Immigrants, unions, and the new US labor market. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Oliver, J. Eric and Tali Mendelberg.(2000). “Reconsidering the Environmental Determinants of White Racial Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 44, no. 3: 574-589.
Oliver, J. Eric and Janelle Wong (2003). “Intergroup Prejudice in Multiethnic Settings.” American Journal of Political Science, 47-4: 567-582.
Oliver, Melvin L., and Grant, David M. (1995). “Making Space for Multiethnic
Coalitions: The Prospects for Coalition Politics in Los Angeles,” in Yu, Eui-
Young, and Chang, Edward T. (eds.) (1995). Multiethnic Coalition Building inLos Angeles. Claremont: Regina Press.
Oliver, Melvin, and Johnson, James Jr. 1984. “Inter-ethnic Conflict in an Urban
Ghetto: The Case of Blacks and Latinos in Los Angeles.” Research in SocialMovements, Conflict and Change, v.6.
Olney, Warren (May 31, 1998). “Joe Hicks: Dealing with L.A.’s Racial Divisiveness
through Coalition Politics,” Los Angeles Times.
Pastor, Manuel, Jr., and Enrico Marcelli (2003). “Somewhere Over the Rainbow? African
Americans, Unauthorized Mexican Immigration and Coalition Building” Review of Black Political Economy, 31:1–2: 125–155.
Pilisuk, Marc, McAllister, JoAnn, and Rothman, Jack (Spring 1998). “Coming
Together for Action: The Challenge of Contemporary Grassroots Community
Organizing,” Journal of Social Issues, v.52, no.1.
Portes, A. & Zhou. M. (1993). “The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and
its variants among post-1965 immigrant youth.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74-98.
Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R.G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.
powell, j. (2007) “Structural Racism.” Kirwan Institute.
http://kirwan.gripserver3.com/research/structural-racism.php.
Regalado, Jamie A. (1995). “Creating Multicultural Harmony? A Critical Perspective
on Coalition-Building Efforts in Los Angeles,” in Yu, Eui-Young, and
Chang, Edward T. (eds.) (1995). Multiethnic Coalition Building in Los Angeles.Claremont: Regina Books.
Roediger, D. (1991). The wages of whiteness. London: Verso 1991.
Roediger, D. & Barrett, J. (2002) “Inbetween peoples: Race, nationality, and the ‘new immigrant’ working class.” In David Roediger, Colored white: Transcending the racial past. Berkeley: University of California Press. -34- Schmitt, John. April 2008. “Unions and Upward Mobility for African-American Workers,” Center for Economic and Policy Research. www.cepr.net/documents/publications/unions_2008_04.pdf.
Sen, Rinku and Fekkak Mamdouh. (2008) The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. New York: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Smith, R. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in US history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sonenshein, Raphael J. (1989). “The Dynamics of Biracial Coalitions: Crossover
Politics in Los Angeles,” Western Political Quarterly, v.42.
Sonenshein, Raphael J. (1990). “Biracial Coalitions in Big Cities: Why They Succeed,
Why They Fail,” in Browning, Rufus, Rogers, Dale, and Tabb, David (eds.)
Sonenshein, Raphael J. (1990). Racial Politics in American Cities. New York: Longman.
Steinberg, S. (2005). “Immigration, African-Americans, and Race Discourse.”
New Politics, 10, 3, 42-54.
Steinberg, S. (2007). Race Relations: A Critique. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Stoll, Michael A., Edwin Melendez, and Abel Valenzuela (2002). Spatial Job Search and
Job Competition among Immigrant and Native Groups in Los Angeles. Regional Studies, 36-2: 97–112.
Stout, Linda (1996). Bridging the Class Divide and Other Lessons for GrassrootsOrganizing. Boston: Beacon Press.
Thompson, P.J. (2006). Double trouble: Black mayors, black communities, and the call for a deep democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tienda, M., & Mitchell, F., eds. (2006). Hispanics and the future of America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Underwood, K. (1997). “Ethnicity is not enough: Latino-led multiracial coalitions in
Los Angeles.” Urban Affairs Review, 33, 1, 3-27.
Underwood, Katharine. (1992). “Process and Politics: Multiracial Coalition
Building and Representation in Los Angeles’ Ninth District, 1949-1962,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Unemoto, Karen (1994). “Blacks and Koreans in Los Angeles: The Case of
Latasha Harlins and Soo Ja Du,” in Jennings, James (ed.) (1994). Blacks, Latinos,and Asians in Urban America. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Van Parijs, P., ed. (1992). Arguing for basic income. New York: Verso.
Waldinger, R. (1996). Still the promised city: African-Americans and new immigrants inpostindustrial New York. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-35-
Waldinger, R. (1993). Black/immigrant competition re-assessed: New evidence from Los Angeles. Unpublished. Los Angeles: UCLA, Department of Sociology.
Waldinger, R. (1986). Through the eye of the needle: Immigrants and enterprise in New York’s garment trades. New York: New York University Press.
Waldinger, R. (1989). “Structural Opportunity or Ethnic Advantage? Immigrant Business Development in New York.” International Migration Review, 23, 1, 48-72.
Waldinger, Roger 1997. “Black Immigrant Competition Re-Assessed: New Evidence from Los Angeles.” Sociological Perspectives, 40-3: 365–386.
Warren, Mark R. (1996). Creating a Multiracial Democratic Community: CaseStudy of the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation, Center for International Affairs,Harvard University.
Widener, D. (2008). “Another City is Possible: Interethnic Organizing in Contemporary Los Angeles.” Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 1, 2, 189-219.
Yancy, G. (2003). Who is white?: Latinos, Asians, and the new Black/nonBlack divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
-36- INCLUSIVE RELIGIOUS VALUES IN THE
IMMIGRATION DEBATE:
LOCATING AND ASSESSING ITS PAST ROLE
AND FUTURE IMPACT
Alethia Jones, Ph.D.
University at Albany, SUNY
To paraphrase W.E.B. Dubois, “The problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of the citizenship line.” Legal status and citizenship have been transformed into the defining terms of legitimate presence in the United States and in participation in the country’s social, economic, cultural and political life. A wave of state and local laws have swept across the country in the last ten years, including Official English ballot initiatives, the denial of driver’s licenses to the undocumented, fining employers who hire the undocumented as well as landlords who rent to them, and the use of local police to identify and detain undocumented immigrants on behalf of federal officials (National Council of State Legislatures 2009; Light 2006). In combination, these laws create a state of constant surveillance of an individual’s legal status. As a result, one could argue that the construction of the “illegal” is one of the most significant human rights issues of our time.
These legal and policy decisions have been supported by rhetoric that denigrates the presence of new immigrants. A number of watch words have come to frame the immigration debate that portray immigrants as carriers of disease, perpetrators of crime, job stealers, and welfare freeloaders. For students of history, this dehumanizing rhetoric raises the specter of mass expulsions and crimes against humanity. Add war and economic depression to political opportunists who blame specific groups of people for society’s woes and everyday callousness can quickly lurch into egregious acts of individual and state-sponsored violence. This combination of fear, loathing and opportunism shaped Indian Removal politics of the 19th century, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Japanese internment camps of World War II, and the 2002 Special Registration program which required all men from predominantly Middle Eastern and Muslim countries to register in person with the federal government.1 If the contemporary immigration debate degrades into morally untenable, even abhorrent acts, we will create yet another historical moral hangover – our descendants will wonder how we could have denied the obvious humanity of our foreign-born neighbors.
Religious communities play a variety of roles in addressing immigration, particularly with regard to the moral concerns of the nation. While it seems that the “law and order” wing of the political spectrum has done a better job of capturing and defining the public debate on immigration than its “love and inclusion” counterpart, the latter has neither been wholly ineffective, nor silent on the matter. Its value, however, as a source of moral authority and inclusiveness has not made its way into in the broader mainstream immigration discourse. The Carnegie Corporation’s Strangers as Neighbors project
1 To learn more about Special Registration program, see the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund report, “Special Registration: Discrimination and Xenophobia as Government Policy” (2004). -37-
prompts the exploration of some important questions: Why aren’t more clergy addressing immigration as a moral issue? Why do the efforts that exist seemingly fail to stake out a clear and compelling ground for progressive religious values in the public debate?
This paper assesses faith-based strategies to capture the public’s heart and mind on immigration, drawing on my participation in an array of immigration-related events – including conferences, strategy sessions, media training workshops, local press events and political actions. In addition, I draw on my academic background in immigration politics and policy. 2 The analysis is deliberately provocative, with the aim of stimulating discussion. It examines the structure and nature of language of public conversations on immigration rather than advocating for a rationale for a specific message on immigration. Achieving a more inclusive rhetoric based on progressive religious values goes well beyond offering facts about immigrants and weighing in on the fine points of policy proposals. The aims of the Strangers as Neighbors project clearly indicate the belief that a purely legal victory will be incomplete if the inherent humanity and worth of all persons is not recognized. To this end, in addition to addressing questions of rhetorical strategy, later sections of the paper raise questions with respect to political and media strategy as well.
WHAT IS AT STAKE?
How are we to understand this gap between a well-organized, articulate, educated, clergy and the moral vacuity of the public debate on immigration? Before answering this question, it is important to note that the public square in this context refers to that which is dominated by the mainstream mass media. In contrast, smaller, more specialized publics can furnish more friendly venues for religious voices. For example, the progressive faithful may receive pro-immigrant arguments through sermons from the pulpit, religious newsletters and pamphlets, or events (such as talks, panels, and potluck dinners) sponsored by an institution’s social justice committee. These outlets certainly have a significant bearing on how individuals affiliated with these institutions understand their faith and its implications for policy positions. However, they do not necessarily play a role in the larger, more dominant public square.3 Clearly, this absence is a problem if we are interested in shaping public debate in inclusive terms that draws on faith-based rhetoric.
In the last 15 years the immigration debate has shifted decisively from questions of assimilation to a focus on legal status. California’s Proposition 187, a ballot initiative to deny public services to “illegals,” was the opening shot in this transition. Immigration restrictionists consistently portray immigrants as non-taxpaying freeloaders, blaming them for costly public services. The referendum passed in 1994 with 59 percent of the vote but a federal judge later invalidated the measure as unconstitutional. The legal defeat in California, however, did not end the matter. Instead, it ushered in an important cultural and policymaking turning point. Repeated attempts to succeed where Prop. 187 failed fueled a new wave of state and federal laws that eventually shifted the rhetoric and policy surrounding undocumented immigrants (Jacobson 2008). For example, this narrative,
2 A rigorous empirical study, in contrast, would investigate the number and type of pro-immigrant commenta­tors that appear on key news programs.
3 This paradox may prove to be similar to one Andrew Rich (2001) identified in the think tank world where conservative think tanks dominate the airwaves but nonpartisan think tanks, like the Brookings Institution, hold more influence in the halls of power and decisionmaking.-38- despite its factual distortions, shaped federal welfare reform in 1996 that denied legal taxpaying immigrants access to welfare services for five years (Newton 2008).4
As a result of these victories, the legal status of immigrants has become the defining question about immigration often captured in the rhetorical trope, “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” One can find a religious link to this transformation. The Christian Identity movement and the Council of Conservative Citizens publicize their belief that the United States is a Christian and European country and that those traditions and people should remain dominant.5 Others root their concern about the “illegal” problem in a more secular sense of patriotism. These views have also translated into anti-immigration action and policy. Fueled by a desire to control the Southern border, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sends volunteers with guns and binoculars to “help” the Border Patrol capture unauthorized migrants emerging from the desert (www.minutemanhq.com). Overall, a suspicious and hostile relationship to immigrants that has come to dominate the public discussion on immigration,
Drawing on longstanding traditions of welcoming the stranger, progressive religious groups have also developed valuable rhetorical resources for pro-immigration politics and ethics. The full inclusion of faith-based voices in the public square has powerful implications for both the cultural tenor of the society we live in and the laws we pass. At the very least, a religiously-based inclusive discourse can demonstrate to the American public how to disagree without engaging in the dehumanization of entire categories of persons. We would critique facile and pernicious linkages to terrorism and disease and other strategies that easily construct an easily denigrated and discardable “them” to a pristine and privileged “us.” We can acknowledge the lack of appropriate documents and differences over policy options yet respect the fundamental humanity of all immigrants. The presence of a compelling pro-immigrant rationale rooted in religious traditions of inclusion that demonstrates a more compassionate tone affects how the public reasons about immigration and the actions individuals engage in on this issue.
THE PARADOX OF RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION
Many religious communities embrace the presence of the undocumented but the services they provide and their policy victories occur without a comparable impact on the mainstream discourse. Catholic social teaching, for example, fuels efforts to recognize the humanity of immigrants and to serve their needs. A variety of religious communities have translated social justice traditions into specific practices. For example, the Humane Borders project, created by an interfaith coalition, built and operates more than 70 emergency water stations on and near the U.S.-Mexico border to help those crossing the desert to survive the journey (www.humaneborders.org). More generally, a religious tie
4 The welfare exclusions occurred under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Some benefits were restored to elderly and disabled immigrants in 1997 (namely Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid) (See Fragomen, Jr 1997 to learn more). Two other 1996 laws, the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, also curbed the rights of legal immigrants and increased criminal penalties for the undocumented.
5 To date, immigration has not made it onto the list of issues for religious groups concerned with the culture war, where abortion, gay marriage and a culture of life (stem cells, assisted suicide) remain the dominant policy concerns. -39-
can be found in a number of immigration-related programs and projects: the provision of refugee services, border witness delegations that forge links with Mexican communities, fair trade relationships, and participation in the international Jubilee campaign that seeks debt forgiveness for poor countries, not to mention countless private acts of charity.
Although the power of anti-immigration rhetoric and politics cannot be denied, pro-immigrant forces have attained some major policy victories over the decades. Faith-based organizations have played a decisive role in procuring key policy outcomes. They established the field of refugee services, and the ongoing work in this field. They also played a decisive role in the successful Sanctuary movement of the 1980s that obtained legal status to previously undocumented El Salvadorans and Guatemalans by securing them a political asylee designation (Coutin 1993; Haines 1997). In addition, religious organizations were part of the coalition contributed to the 1986 landmark federal law granting legal status (often referred to as amnesty) to approximately three million undocumented persons.
Furthermore, supporters of legalization and comprehensive immigration reform, including religious groups, have also enjoyed key electoral victories over anti-immigration candidates. Republicans who ran on immigration issues in 2006 and 2008 election cycles often lost. In fact, Democrats won majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. Enforcement-only hardliners consistently lost to Democrats with practical comprehensive reform stances (they won 14 out of 16 seats in 2008 House races; five out of five reformers won in the Senate) (America’s Voice n.d.).
Despite these victories, there seems to be a decided absence of rhetorical bounce. Why does the sense that immigrants are welfare free loaders, or that amnesty is a reward for illegality, remain so powerful in the public imagination and rhetoric? Amnesty recipients receive justice and fairness as individuals in the courts (and as a class in law), but the culture is not left with a sense of having done the right thing. Individual immigrants benefit from these changes but the larger culture and the public debate seems immune; they remain largely unaware, uneducated and unmoved on this issue. An odd paradox comes to light, one where legislative and legal successes coexist with a lack of concordant rhetorical clarity in the public square.
This state of affairs seems especially puzzling insofar as religious progressives have overcome one of the foremost obstacles to participation in the public square: they possess a large number of devoted leaders and laypersons who can speak passionately on this issue from a faith perspective. Religious leaders are practiced public spokespersons and many traditions have well-defined positions that articulate the moral obligation to ‘welcome the stranger.’6 The Catholic Church, as well as the Methodists, the Unitarians, the Quakers and other denominations and faith traditions has powerful statements on both the moral and policy issues at hand.7 Moreover, several interfaith coalitions have
6 In the Hebrew Bible, see Leviticus 19:33-34 (Judaic); in the New Testament, see Matthew 25: 31-40 (Chris­tian); in the Qur’an, see 4:36 (Islamic).
7 From the Friends Committee on National Legislation (A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest): “All those seeking to enter the United States or residing here should, without regard to immigration status, be treated with justice and equity.” From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “As a nation, we cannot -40- publicly stated their support for policies that embrace fair and humane treatment of all immigrants, especially the undocumented. The Interfaith Immigration Coalition’s policy statement declares that, “We engage the immigration issue with the goal of fashioning an immigration system that facilitates legal status and family unity in the interest of serving the God-given dignity and rights of every individual.”8 Furthermore, many religious bodies have an established presence in Washington, D.C. and skillfully convey their policy positions through press releases, reports, and prayer breakfasts. The lack of “bounce” to an inclusive religious view is not due to a lack of skill, devotion, or a well defined counter-framing of the immigration issue.
EXPLAINING THE PARADOX
While the politics of the mainstream media certainly plays a role in choosing which messages to support and disseminate, my focus here is on strategies available to faith-based communities for improving their chances of being selected by these outlets. It is worth reiterating that this analysis is suggestive, based on my experience as a participant in a number of local and national immigrant organizations, some of which employ a congregation-based model of political organizing. In addition, I have participated in several media trainings on immigration (sponsored by a variety of organizations), made statements at press conferences and serve as an interviewee in print and broadcast media (TV and radio). These observations seek to promote discussion and analysis that can be explored more systematically at a later point. I offer four reasons for the limited presence and impact of progressive voices, in general, and religious voices in particular, in the national immigration debate.
1. The absence of a meaningful media strategy and dedicated media spokespeople
The media strategies I have observed and participated in tend to be episodic and haphazard in nature. Advocates know media coverage is important but often lack the resources (training, additional staff, time) to embark on a strategic and well-executed media strategy. Instead, they pursue coverage for an individual event, be it a press conference, a march or protest rally. They also rely on appealing to individuals to write letters to the editor and op-eds. While these activities can secure coverage of individual events, they are often insufficient for addressing major policy issues. A case in point is the public’s reaction to then-Governor Spitzer’s (D-NY) 2007 proposal to restore the ability of undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.9 The announcement sparked public opprobrium. Spitzer’s poll numbers plummeted and the endorsement of immigrant rights, civil rights, and other groups, such as the New York State Catholic Conference did not stem the tide.10 Spitzer withdrew his proposal two months after he introduced it. The battle for hearts and minds was lost in the relentless barrage of local continue to employ an immigration system that leads to the exploitation of millions of our fellow human beings. … This strikes at the very character of our nation and lessens us as a people.” (Statement of the Chair of USCCB, June 28, 2007, “The Failure of Immigration Reform.”
8 From the “Interfaith Statement in Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” updated October 24, 2008. Accessible at www.interfaithimmigration.org/.
9 Governor George Pataki, a Republican, ended this practice in 2002 by introducing a new requirement – driver’s licenses could only be given to individuals with a valid Social Security number. See www.state.ny.us/governor/press/0921071.html.
10 See “Catholic Conference Backs Spitzer’s Driver’s License Plan,” The New York Times. October 4, 2007 (City Room). -41-
conservative talk radio, possible lawsuits by local administrators, and a chilly silence from political supporters taken aback by the public’s negative reaction.
Press conferences, op-eds and protests are episodic and inconsistent compared to sustained public acts that visually and viscerally link principles, actions and policy. The Minuteman stake-outs at the border (binoculars, lawn chairs, and firearms) were visually compelling. The mailing of bricks to Congress in support of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border was a deeply arresting message. Both captured the media’s imagination spurring additional coverage and commentary (i.e. the coveted “free” or earned media).
Which events captured the public’s imagination in a similar way on behalf of immigrants? The Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride certainly had that potential. It tapped into the imagery of the Civil Rights era cross-country bus rides and provided a coherent narrative that paired that history with the contemporary struggle for status and dignity for the undocumented (see www.immigrantworkersfreedomride.com). Unlike its Civil Rights predecessors, however, the Immigrant Freedom Rides did not attract sustained public attention. Lasting only two weeks (September 20 to October 4, 2003), the rides lacked the public resistance and drama that made the original bus rides iconic. Similarly, the progressive response to the brick sending strategy also fell flat. Activists belatedly mobilized mailings of work gloves to Congress, but this did not create anything like the media firestorm that followed the brick-sending strategy.
More recent attempts to attract media coverage have also had limited impact. For example, between February and May 2009, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, went on a national Family Unity Tour, visiting congregations in 21 cities and listening to the impact of our laws on immigrant families. However, the town halls, prayer vigils and other events in this first-of-its-kind national tour attracted, did not attract much coverage in the national press.11 Whatever benefits the Tour yielded with respect to “firing up the religious community,” cathartic sharing, and community organizing, its impact on the national dialogue remains to be seen.
In contrast, the numerous immigrant marches in spring 2006 brought hundreds of thousands to the streets to support progressive immigration reform and elicited extensive and sustained media coverage.12 Organizers learned by doing, switching from holding Mexican and other foreign flags to U.S. flags. But many wondered if the marches represented a sustained social movement (such as the original freedom rides) or an
11 The New York Times referenced the tour once as part of a page one story covering Obama Administration’s announcement that immigration is very much on their agenda (“Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Pri­ority” Thursday, April 9, 2009). The Washington Post did an extensive feature on Gutierrez’s role in immigra­tion reform battle that featured the Tour, see “No Turning Back: Rep. Luis Gutierrez Is Making Immigration Reform a Personal Cause,” May 8, 2009 (published the day before the last tour event which was scheduled the day before Mother’s Day, May 9. The story, which includes a retrospective angle of the national tour, did not run in the Sunday edition on May 10). Gutierrez’s hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune, had one feature on March 5, 2009 (“Immigration reform movement looks to evangelicals, children left behind by deported parents). There was no coverage of the Family Unity Tour in the Los Angeles Times.
12 Marches occurred in over a hundred cities and on a variety of dates. But simultaneous national marches occurred primarily on April 10 (declared the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice and May 1 (Inter­national Workers Rights Day, aka May Day). -42- episodic flare-up in respo