Practical, if not probable, solutions for immigration reform

Here it is, my feeble attempt to take on the mess that is our U.S. immigration system. However, I do not believe that a few simple fixes will fundamentally change the root cause of institutionalized immigrant discrimination. To end institutional immigrant discrimination you first need to eliminate institutionalized racism/sexism--and, unfortunately, I do not see that changing anytime soon.

Racism, sexism and classism will only abate when the social hierarchies of wealth and power structures in American capitalism are dismantled. Indeed, capitalism--especially late stage, unregulated capitalism, requires an ever-increasing number of hyper-exploitable, vulnerable workers to utilize against other workers in order to drive down wages for everyone.

Of course, race and sex are two favorite modes of classifying and segregating these workers: legal and illegal workers is another. It behooves capitalism to segregate workers in hierarchies in order to pit the various groups against each other. This ensures there is always a vulnerable group for capitalism to exploit (should one group get too demanding and uppity) and also keeps the working masses so busy fighting and blaming each other they will never unite together and fight their common oppressor: the elite capitalists.

Having said that, if I was the American President and had unlimited power (unrealistic--I know) I would do the following--listed in order of priority.

#1

The first thing I would do is ensure that The Family Unification Act and The Dream Act will pass. Two many wives, husbands, children, brothers and sisters are being needlessly torn apart with little prospect of reuniting. Additionally, many promising and intelligent young people are being deported before they can finish their degrees. The majority of them did not have a choice as to whether to stay in the US illegally. They came here as young children. Deporting any of these individuals-without a legal avenue to adjust their status-- is barbaric, ridiculous and goes against morality and commonsense.


#2

The second adjustment I would implement is changing our economic and foreign policies in order to foster cooperation with developing nations to strengthen their economies rather than plundering their raw materials, exploiting their labor force and undermining their autonomy. The stronger a nation becomes--and the more stable--the less likely people will move from their homelands. With that being said I will digress for a moment:

People don't like moving from their homeland, friends and families. In general, people prefer to remain in familiar surroundings with people of a similar language, customs and a shared history. Migrants don't like moving to foreign lands but they are compelled to do so for various reasons including extreme poverty, starvation, political/ethnic/religious violence and turmoil in their homelands. And although there has always been migration; the contemporary waves of immigrants from the southern hemisphere towards the epicenters of capitalism in the Northern hemisphere is unprecedented in history.

So, we need to ask ourselves, why is this mass exodus happening?

In a nutshell, these mass migrations are fueled by globalization and the unequal power dynamics between rich and developing countries that can be traced to colonialism, imperialism and the contemporary incarnation of unregulated turbo charged-capitalism. These policies of global de-regulation and unlimited free trade have been facilitated by IMF and WTO loan policies to control developing nations. The United States has significantly contributed to the financing of the IMF and WTO and therefore has undue influence in shaping these loan policies.

Jarrett S, Lovell, author and activist explains the history of the IMF specifically, and how it has metamorphosed into the neo-liberal institution it is today:

"In assessing the rise of corporate domination, many observers identify the aftermath of the Second World War as the era when corporate power became most pronounced. Indeed, the roots of contemporary discontent over corporate globalization can be found within the international trade institutions and policies that emerged at the end of the Second World War. Specifically after the war ended, the United Nations Monetary and financial Conference was assembled at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the International Monetary fund (IMF) was created to finance the construction of Europe and to prevent international financial crises. To be sure, the IMF is a public institution. It is financed by taxes provided by citizens from contributor nations. It was established to allow countries experiencing financial problems to continue with global trade uninterrupted. the IMF initially recognized that even so-called free markets require regulation to prevent economic and social catastrophe. By the 1980's, however, the IMF operated according to an ideology that viewed any regulation as a barrier to capital. Under a new doctrine of neoliberalism, officials from the IMF encouraged countries to "liberalize" their economies, that is, to reduce or do away with such barriers as tariffs and humanitarian or environmental regulations."

So, in order to pave the way for free trade in developing nations, the IMF and WTO will coerce a country to dismantle their social networks, eliminate environmental protections for their citizens, de-value their currency and implement any number of laws and conditions that favor commerce (aka "progress") over citizenry. Some countries have even been strong armed into altering their constitutions in order to placate transnational companies.

So, transnational companies move into an area, set up temporary factories and hire the indigenous people for a pittance. They exploit and mistreat their workers while simultaneously destroying and poisoning the communities and residential areas where their employees live.

Suddenly--they will close up shop, layoff their workers and move to another developing nation where they can pay the work force less and exploit the populace and environment further. Leaving all workers, the world over, vulnerable, subjugated and intimidated.

#3

If I was President, I would consider one of my most fundamental jobs would be to hold myself, and all other public people and institutions to a high standard of ethics, particularly paying close attention to how words can fuel hate and human rights violations.

Citizens in The United States are fearful and look to the future anxiously. When people are scared they tend to look for a scapegoat to blame their troubles on. As Bertrand Russell eloquently states: "Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd."
The President must be aware of this tendency and must not only choose his words wisely but must also publicly chastise those public individuals who use language unscrupulously to fuel hate and fear-mongering.

#4

As President I would completely overhaul the U.S. immigration court system. I would make sure that all judges sitting on the immigration court benches actually had a degree in immigration law. I would hire more immigration judges to take on the expanding load of immigration cases.

Additionally, I would expand the number of approved asylum quotas--based on need per each individual country.I would also implement some type of committee to oversee immigration lawyers. Any lawyers found misrepresenting themselves or exploiting immigrants would be fined and disbarred.

These are a few of the reforms I would put in place. There are more I could add but these are the most urgently needed.

"Other people's baggage"

The title of this post was borrowed from a phrase written on a blog maintained by a good friend of mine. Her name is Giselle Stern Hernandez and her husband was deported to Mexico back in 2000. A few months later she left her homeland in the United States to join him.

Giselle is a multi-talented artist who travels across the States and Mexico to perform a monologue piece she created about her exiled experience and the consequences of her husband's deportation. I highly recommend her blog and will include a link.

After reading a particular post on Giselle's blog: The Deportees Wife entitled "When Dialogue is Pointless." I was particularly struck by a specific phrase that Giselle wrote. The phrase was "other people's baggage" It was written in response to how some people miscontrue the fundamental message of her monologue, or make uneducated judgments about Giselle, her personality and lifestyle--in addition to forming opinions about her husband. This oftentimes happens even before they attend her show and is based upon sound bites and posters.

I am often confronted by "other people's baggage" when I engage in dialogue with individuals about my husband's immigration problems. I never know exactly how people think about our story, unless they are completely forthright --and that seldom happens. I often get exclamations of empathy and "I can't believe this is happening in America." Oftentimes I feel people within my inner circle are sympathetic to a point--but only because Khalid is someone they know or have heard about--and because he is my husband. Otherwise, this sympathy does not extend to other immigrants with similar circumstances.

People come with "baggage". I come with "baggage." This is a fundamental truth about human behavior. Many things can contribute to the accumulation of baggage including history, media and personal experiences. We, as educators and activists, can never know what kind of baggage the people with whom we engage in dialogue are carrying. Some people are so burdened by their own baggage that they will never make the effort to understand our stories. Luckily, some will. These are the people who put down their baggage long enough to pick up somebody else's.

And there will be others who may not "get it now" but through maturity and additional knowledge may "get it later." Unfortunately, some people will "get it" only when they or a loved one experience the deportation of someone close to them. This is the time when people like Giselle and I need to put down our baggage; and pick up somebody else's.

http://thedeporteeswife.wordpress.com/

Immigrant rights activism

As a result of connecting with other U.S. citizens whose significant other has been deported or detained, I have decided that I need to do something productive. There are far too many of us going through this tragedy. This needless suffering must come to an end! There are various ideas floating in my head, and I’m sure you have ideas too. We need to communicate with each other and brainstorm like crazy—and come up with ways to educate the public.

One idea I’ve been pondering involves borrowing an idea from our AIDS activist friends and creating a quilt that depicts the names of loved ones who have been deported or under deportation proceedings. This idea involves getting together a significant number of interested individuals willing to help create the quilt. Ideally, each person would agree to create a square of their loved one—or someone they know. Individuals who do not personally know anyone deported will still be welcome to participate. We can assign them a name. There is certainly not a shortage of people being deported and families being separated-- and the numbers increase every year.

Preferably, each quilt square would be created with materials that are durable. We want this quilt to be a testament to our determination to end these deportations—so it must be created to endure for decades. The idea is to send this quilt, upon completion, to various galleries and functions across the country to help raise awareness.

I have years of experience in needlework, sewing and designing so I am capable and willing to help coordinate the effort. If anyone else has similar experience, motivation or just passion please let me know. This group, unlike the contemporary functioning of our government-- will be a democratically organized community.
However, you don’t have to be an artist, designer or even be creative to make a quilt square. All that is needed is a willingness to learn and be spontaneous. I can help anyone who needs advice and can even design specific motifs. I’m sure there will be others willing to assist as well.

I do sincerely believe that art can change social consciousness. Art activists the world over are working diligently to help improve their communities. Right this minute there are thousands of activists, artists and performers who have congregated in Detroit to forge a different world. Change is not only possible, it is necessary.
Change begins with an idea—activists take those ideas and make them a reality. Let us be the immigrant rights activists who change the world for the better. If you are interested please contact me.

I can be reached on Facebook under the name Beth Brotherton, Hamilton College or at e-mail: silverwing6700@yahoo.com If you know of anyone else who may be interested please feel free to forward this message. Please, if you have any additional ideas let me know. I want to help forge a strong and unified community so we can help each other.

An American oubliette

It’s interesting to note how many times I’ve written about racism in this blog. When I started this blog a year ago I never thought the concept of race would become such an integral part of my writings. But as the months went by and I started to do more research and took more classes—I realized that the constructions and definitions of race has contributed significantly to my husband’s difficult immigration predicament. I also became aware of how racism operates in contemporary culture and how it has been wiped from the consciousness of white America.

It is not surprising that I have been confronted by people who deny that race is a “big deal” in contemporary American society. I have been asked, point blank, if I truly believe that race has had any influence on my husband’s case; oftentimes with an incredulousness tone in their voice that defies me to contradict what they perceive as the “racelessness” of American culture.

I am always taken aback by this question. First off, I am vocal about racial, ethnic and religious discrimination and how those factors have influenced and shaped the rising xenophobia that has gripped this nation since the 9/11 attacks. As a result, I wouldn’t think it necessary to ask this question. I fervently believe that racism, unrestrained capitalism and the resulting rise of poverty, along with white nationalism have contributed to this moral panic that has spread across this country like a biblical plaque of locusts. But I soon realized this question has little to do with interrogating my convictions and everything about the questioner reinforcing their own viewpoints. These particular questions always come from white people—and normally from those who mistakenly believe that racism is a relic carefully contained in the oubliette of America’s distant past.

After explaining my opinion I am usually confronted with the following: How do you explain previous generations of immigrants including the Poles, Italians and Irish who faced extreme prejudice and discrimination? I explain it in the same way I explain my husband’s situation. Discrimination of immigrants, whether in the past or present, is shaped by distinctions made between those who are considered “desirable’ and those that are labeled “undesirable.” One of the most influential factors determining the merit of an immigrant group attempting to assimilate into American society has always been race.

These designations are based on arbitrary definitions that include evaluations on race, ethnicity and religion. While all three factors have been used historically in this “sifting”—and continue to be utilized, I would argue that contemporary evaluations have a tendency to highlight race and religion. This makes sense in the light of the recent war on terror (aka war on Islam) and the current wave of black and brown immigrants.

Even in the historical case of the Poles, the Irish and the Italians, race was a determining factor. The definition of “whiteness”, and who could claim such a designation has altered over the centuries; shifting alongside changing social landscapes to begrudgingly include some and exclude others. Back “in the day”, it was acceptable to discriminate against the Poles, the Irish and the Italians—not only because of the perceived ethnic difference, but because they were not considered to be white; and therefore were designated as sub-human.

I recently read an article that explained this phenomenon. ( the link can be found below.) Although it’s a decent article, and deals with some of the issues I have brought up in this blog post, I do not condone the author’s proclamation that “whites”—despite losing their majority status in 2050, will still retain their privilege. Basically, the author postulates that despite all the fear mongering about whites becoming a minority, the assimilation of light-skinned Hispanics into the fold of “whiteness” will ensure that “white power” continues unabated.

What???

Absolutely-- fear mongering should abate because one group of the world’s citizens should not hold dominion over another and the retention of white privilege should cease. However, to chide fear mongers for perpetuating the myth that white privilege will end in the near future—is just ethically and morally corrupt.

Don’t mind me...I’m just trying to climb out of America’s oubliette of racism and hypocrisy.


http://www.alternet.org/immigration/147235/why_fearmongering_about_a_white_minority_in_america_is_wrong,_wrong,_wrong/

Minority entitlement vs. white privledge

Entitlement. I’ve been hearing that word quite a lot recently: the result of a variety of social factors including the failing economy, the moral panic over immigration, rising xenophobia and the novelty of the first African-American elected to the presidency. It’s curious because I’ve rarely heard that word used—presumably because in the past there was a certain amount of social compulsion to be politically correct—a desire apparently quenched by the antics of controversial personalities including Glen Beck, Pat Robinson and Sarah Palin. Political correctness is now passé.

What’s interesting, particularly to someone like me—a person who studies the social behavior of humans—is the way that word is being implemented. I am not convinced that the people who are utilizing the word “entitlement” really know what it means.

I hear this word uttered by the lips of white people who are accusing minorities of implementing entitlement in their day to day affairs. The unsettling part resides in the realization that this is an engagement in faulty logic and requires a perverse inversion of the actuality of power dynamics in contemporary American society. While this most often functions as a means to silence and reprimand minorities from claiming their rights as fully engaged and equal citizens (in much the same way the words “slut”, “bitch”, “whore” and “cunt” are used to reprimand and silence women who step outside patriarchal constructions of subservient femininity) it can easily be transferred to poor people and basically any group that appears outside the margins of dominant white/male society.

I’ll give you an idea of what precipitated this musing. I was perusing movie titles in a local video store. After a minority woman dropped off some past due DVD’s at the counter, I overheard a white employee exclaim: “why do minorities always return things late. They always feel entitled to keep things as long as they want.”

This proclamation in a public venue and in the midst of other patrons shocked me by the brazen nature of the outburst. But it’s not the only time I’ve heard similar sentiments expressed. You could substitute a myriad of scenarios for the late DVD’s including: a minority person muscling their way to the front of a line, illegitimately taking a handicapped parking space, or recklessly driving a cart through a crowded grocery store-- but if we look at each rationally we can surmise that these offenses are not exclusive to one particularly race or group of people. They are common breeches of etiquette and good manners that are committed by everyone at one time or another—simply because we are all human and therefore imperfect.

Bad manners and inconsiderate behavior, although impossible to accurately tally, can be understood as universal transgressions perpetrated by all races and groups of people. To characterize transgressions committed by minorities as examples of “entitlement”-- and to simultaneously ignore similar behavior committed by whites is illogical—and quite frankly, racist.

In my opinion, “entitlement”—and all the brutal, inhumane and violent actions that are implemented in its extreme forms are more commonly perpetrated by white elites against minorities. I’ll list a few examples:

• Indian Removal Act 1830
• Asian Exclusion Act of 1924
• Jim Crow laws
• Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
• Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII
• Recent rise in white nationalism that influenced the recent Arizona laws SB170 and laws eliminating ethnic studies in Arizona schools
• Neo-liberal imperialistic policies
• Japanese internment during WWII
• Zoot suit Riots

I could go on, but you get my point. At the heart of this matter is a failure to enlist perspective. I do not think that returning DVD’s late is an example of minority entitlement. It may result in temporary annoyance and anger, but it does not drastically affect the quality of someone else’s life. However, white privilege has resulted in numerous atrocities that have not only affected the quality of life for many individuals —but has oftentimes taken away millions of people’s land, livelihoods, pride, identity, and even lives.

That’s what I have to say about entitlement.