In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Reform Without Justice: Latino Migrant Politics and the Homeland Security State by Alfonso Gonzales, and: Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities by Karma R. Chávez
  • Martha D. Escobar (bio)
Reform Without Justice: Latino Migrant Politics and the Homeland Security State By Alfonso Gonzales. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Vii, 220 pp. isbn 978-0199342938
Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities By Karma R. Chávez. Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2013. Vii, 232 pp. isbn 978-0252079580

The increased violence experienced by migrant communities in the U.S. during the past three decades has prompted massive mobilizations. While migrant rights is the thematic bond, within these efforts there is great disparity in the meaning of migrant rights and the logic, methods, motivations, and participants involved in these struggles. Alfonso Gonzales,1 in Reform Without Justice, and Karma R. Chávez in Queer Migration Politics, critically engage the discussion of the political effectiveness of migrant rights mobilizations. A central concern for both authors is the limitations of dominating inclusionary politics, which attempt to demonstrate migrants’ social and economic contributions and argue for migrants’ rights to be part of the nation. Both Gonzales and Chávez maintain that this approach fails to address the root causes of migration, centers short-term solutions, and overall is ineffective to make structural changes necessary to bring about social justice. Although Gonzales and Chávez have similar critiques of inclusionary politics, they differ in their projects’ objectives and approach.

Gonzales asks why migrants and their allies have been unable to create significant structural changes for migrants despite massive mobilizations. He argues that the post-9/11 consolidation of what he and others term the “Homeland Security State” placed national focus on migration control and anti-terrorism efforts. The state and civil society are joined in attempts to protect the nation from perceived foreign threats, mainly Latina/o migrants who are primarily racialized through the language of criminality. Gonzales draws from Granscian theory and argues that an anti-migrant bloc began forming in the 1980s and established its hegemony over the immigration debate. This anti-migrant hegemony relies on migrant criminalization and constricts migrant rights struggles. The “common sense” of migrant criminality is so entrenched that it places rhetorical limitations on the Migrant Rights Movement and at times turns it reactionary. Gonzales maintains that these efforts frequently aim for what are perceived feasible victories, which often include compromises with anti-migrant forces that promote migration control and result in additional violence. Rather than challenge anti-migrant hegemony, the Migrant Rights Movement attempts to demonstrate the merit of migrants for inclusion. He argues that if immigration reform takes place within these boundaries, very few will actually benefit and the negative consequences for ineligible and future migrants will be great. Methodologically, Gonzales uses critical discourse analysis and ethnography that includes participant observation and interviews. The chapters are case studies that demonstrate how anti-migrant hegemony exerts power at different levels of governance and how migrant rights mobilizations sustain and challenge it.

The power of Gonzales’ argument is highlighted as he himself participates in attempts to distance migrants from criminality, reinforcing the good/bad migrant binary he critiques. He frames his book with the powerful story of Bernardo, a U.S. veteran deported to Mexico, citing that Bernardo was one year old when he migrated to the U.S. and was deployed to Iraq in 1991 and 1993. He was convicted of a misdemeanor for a DUI in 1993 and this was used to deport him in 2010. When discussing anti-migrant hegemony, Gonzales maintains that “… the criminalization of migrants is what makes it easy, almost dutiful (i.e., “common sense”), for a judge to deport someone like (emphasis added) Bernardo, without thinking about the impact of the deportation on his wife, children, mother, community, or even his life” (6).

In the concluding chapter, Bernardo reappears: “After more than a decade of struggle, the movement has not been able to win justice for people like Bernardo, the father and veteran...

pdf