In the spring of 2007, just days after I went to Mexico for the first time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, entered homes and detained 29 people in New Haven, Connecticut who did not have legal immigrant status. This caused a great deal of controversy, and recently, a group of students at the Yale Law School took the case of several of the detainees to sue ICE for the raids. If you want to read the whole story, click here.
I was actually more interested in the reader comments that followed the article, though. Any internet news fiend knows that, much like alcohol, the ability to comment anonymously lowers a person’s inhibitions. The comment section of an article covering any contentious issue is bound to become a forum for vitriol, absolutism, and name-calling among strangers–even if these disagreeing parties might never raise their voices to one another in a real-life conversation.
But when it comes to immigration, I am astounded by the hatred that Americans feel toward those who crossed borders without papers. The article about the ICE raids had a few meek statements of approval for the case. Far more prominent and prevalent were those categorically opposed to the immigrants’ case. Commenters offered the following remarks:
“Follow our laws, come here LEGALLY, and you have nothing to worry about. Go ICE!!!”
“The illegals should have NO rights since they are not citizens and should not even be in this country, let alone be able to file a lawsuit against the government.”
“Americans OVERWHELMINGLY DO NOT WANT ILLEGALS IN OUR COUNTRY.”
“these worthless criminal parasites need to be arrested again, jailed, fined, treated roughly and then deported in the back of a van stuffed with the rest of these thieving parasites”
“Our Government, past & present, Republican & Democrat, have allowed the invasion of 20 to 30 million criminals and uneducated peons which is the largest invasion of any Nation, at any time, by any means & in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution.”
How did you feel when you read these comments? I found myself wondering whether these people would say these things out loud. But I don’t know if it matters. If people think this way, it will guide their actions, their votes, and the messages they teach their children.
You may have noticed that in my blog, I call migrants who enter the United States without proper papers “undocumented.” Though this is gaining currency, most people use the term “illegal immigrants,” or as these commenters have shorthanded, simply “illegals.” There is a political distinction between the two terms. The concept of “illegal immigration” describes the process of entering a country outside of the legal path to do so: fine, that’s pretty accurate. But the idea that a PERSON can be illegal is what influences me, and others, to react strongly against the term. Committing an illegal act does not make you an illegal person. We do not call tax evaders, rapists, or murderers “illegal citizens.” I realize that insisting on another term might seem terribly “politically correct,” but the way we use words very much shapes the way we see the world. That’s why terms that were once standard are considered to be racial slurs inappropriate for use.
The commenters quoted above see undocumented immigrants as illegal human beings. This justifies the choice to call them “parasites” and to insist that they have no rights. If we replaced the word “illegal” with the name of a racial or religious group, these comments would be quickly and publicly condemned. “Illegal” is a code word to make racism seem like patriotism or respect for the law.
A few years ago, I heard a speech by a prominent Mexican academic on the topic of immigration. He said, “the problem with the liberal position on immigration is that they don’t have one. Conservatives know that they do not want immigrants in the United States, period. They see it as an issue of protecting American rights, jobs, and national security. But liberals don’t know what they want. They don’t necessarily want millions of undocumented immigrants to enter the country, either.” I’d add that it’s hard to support immigrants’ rights without risking accusations of anti-Americanism.
So therein lies the problem. If we reject the option of treating undocumented immigrants like criminals, what do we propose as an alternative? I think the fundamental premise of defending the rights of immigrants, regardless of how they entered the United States, is one of human rights. Whether a person is born in the United States or not, he or she has the right to work for a living wage and experience the basic freedoms of citizenship. If the Mexican economy is ill-equipped to provide all of its citizens with this living wage, does that mean that the United States must pick up the slack? I think many people would say, “that’s not our job. Let’s take care of our citizens first.” But what if research showed that the unequal economic relationship between the United States and Mexico was causing this lack of jobs for Mexicans in Mexico? Would we accept the responsibility then? And if we are opposed to contributing to the human rights of citizens of other nations, then what are we doing in the Middle East? Why would we spend billions on “promoting democracy” in Iraq or Afghanistan, but prove completely unwilling to provide basic social services to Mexican citizens living and working within our borders?
Personally, I am glad that the Yale Law students took the case of the detained migrants. I don’t think it will make much difference in the end. I don’t think illegal immigration is a good thing, and I don’t think people should break laws. I would never encourage someone to cross the border without papers, if primarily out of concern for migrants’ personal safety. But I also don’t think that raiding the homes of working families is a good use of federal resources. I do not think immigration issues will be solved by deporting or building walls. Do I have a solution ready to go? I don’t.
But if my experiences have taught me anything, it’s that the injunction to “just come the States legally” is not as simple as it sounds. In fact, for all but the most educated and wealthy Mexicans, it’s next to impossible. If we don’t like illegal immigration, we need to make legal immigration a more user-friendly, egalitarian, inclusive process. If we don’t want millions of immigrants period, legal or not, then we need to look for ways to create jobs in Mexico so that those who migrate for work will not need to leave their families and homelands to earn a provider’s wage. Furthermore, making legal immigration viable allows for much more regulation, regulation that can help distinguish between narcotraffickers and ordinary people just looking for work.
I was thinking about the Minutemen, citizen vigilantes who patrol the U.S.-Mexico border hoping to scare off potential migrants. I wonder if they might come closer to achieving their goals if they invested in providing microcredit loans to rural Mexican families instead of buying rifles and spending days in the desert. After all, migrants do not come to the U.S. for kicks, and it’s hardly a happy experience working below minimum wage in an unfamiliar land. It’s not hard to imagine that those who had other options–like a viable small business–might never make the journey. A Minuteman “defending” the border says he wants to protect his family and his country. Wouldn’t it be more productive to achieve that goal while giving Mexican mothers and fathers the chance to do the same? Maybe it will take a long time to make Mexico a place where all families can meet their needs and achieve their goals. In the meantime, I think it’s only humanitarian to demand compassion, rights, and legal channels for immigration for any brave soul hoping to enter the United States looking to work.
