The creation of an “other” and an enemy that threatens the
united nationalist movement of a country has been a theme in the course thus
far. These ideas have been prevalent in the arguments of scholars such as
Naimark, Staub, and Mann. Mann in particular fleshes this out by arguing that
democracy justifies genocide “in the name of the people.”
In the United States,
“we the people” unites those included in citizenship, but not those who aren’t
citizens. Beyond lack of citizenship, some residents of the United States are
undocumented. The right wing refers to these immigrants as “illegal immigrants”
and insists upon their forced removal from the country, denial of any chance at
citizenship, and the strong protection of the United States-Mexico border.
Anyone who appears Mexican is treated as a criminal or suspicious, as displayed
by Arizona’s immigration bill in 2010.
In a Fox News article (link below), this attitude is
shown through the call to veto a bill that would “compel local law enforcement”
to release undocumented immigrants from prisons. It uses language such as
“illegal immigrant gangster” and “rampant public safety threat” and tells a
story of a murdered teen to demonize an ethnic group as the enemy of the United
States while instilling fear. By rehashing the point that this could be
dangerous, the article represents an agenda to unite all American citizens
against all undocumented Mexican immigrants with no rationale but unfortunately
an incredible amount of effectiveness. This news article is seen by thousands
of people, who then tell their political allies.
This heavy emphasis on
deporting undocumented immigrants is eerily similar to the beginning of
genocide in other places, such as Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Popular
American political rhetoric reinforces these ideas, and in many areas of the
country, it’s a risky political move to come out in support of immigrant
populations. In America, we are seeing a movement that is difficult to
distinguish from other administrations which have carried out genocide against
an “enemy” population for a supposed benefit to society.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/father-murdered-teen-urges-gov-brown-to-veto-illegal-immigrant-bill/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of your point about the right-wing describing immigrants as “illegal” vs. the term that you prefer, “undocumented,” I was reminded of the following two CNN articles which were published last July and went totally viral, debating the appropriateness of the term “illegal.”
ReplyDeleteIn a very well-argued piece titled “Why ‘illegal immigrant’ is a slur,” Charles Garcia, responding to the Supreme Court’s notable disuse of the terminology “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” in its Arizona decision, presents his view that those two terms, which often get thrown around in everyday American vocabulary, represent more than a mere description, but a slur against undocumented immigrants. He points to the criminal implications behind the word “illegal” in reference to a person, arguing that:
“When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.”
Through this point, he emphasizes the power that language has to convey meaning, and consequently, to transmit hateful and derisive attitudes about a people. While Ruben Navarrette’s response, “‘Illegal immigrant’ is the uncomfortable truth,” argues that undocumented immigrants have, in fact, broken the law and done something illegal, it is precisely the application of the adjective “illegal” to a human that makes the terminology inappropriate. Undocumented people are deemed “illegal” and other criminals are not.
What is scary, and Garcia points this out, is that every day American people, and specifically journalists, participate in this racist rhetoric without realizing it. Before reading these articles, I too was guilty of throwing around the word “illegal” unconsciously when the issue came up in conversation. Language is the most important form of communication, but rarely to we take the time to question new rhetoric as it comes to us. Neither did the Germans, I am sure, when the Nazis rose to power. Whether they questioned the Nazis policy toward the Jews or no, I doubt the Nazi rhetoric itself was heavily questioned. As Garcia points out, it was in Britain and in reference to Jews fleeing Germany that the term “illegal immigrant” first came into use.
What intrigues me about your post and the articles that I discussed is that they bring up the issue of language in the conversation of how genocide happens or rather how we allow it to. I am not at all surprised to see Fox News participating in this hateful rhetoric. The entire article is frustrating in that Shaw totally misplaces his anger, blaming his son’s death on a lack of documentation rather than on gang violence itself, which has always been prevalent in urban areas among documented Americans. Furthermore, the legislation, as I understand it, would still hold people who committed grievous offenses described as a “serious or violent felony” which would obviously include murder among many other crimes. In general, there are a lot of people in this country that are very angry at “illegal” immigrants and the fact that they refer to them as such only serves to reinforce and justify that anger.
Garcia’s article:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html
Navarette’s response:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/opinion/navarrette-illegal-immigrant/index.html