American Immigration After 1996: The Shifting Ground of Political Inclusion

Introduction

Introduction In the two years preceding the 2008 presidential election, immigration became a hot topic of public discussion for the first time since the mid1990s .1 In light of the events of September 11, 2001, it has generally been taken for granted that there is an “immigration problem,” and concern has largely been directed at unauthorized entrants, mostly from Mexico.2 Although the perception that there is a serious immigration problem is nothing new, the issue took on new momentum in this brief time period.3 In 2006, for example, arrests of immigrants nationwide doubled;4 President George W. Bush succeeded in doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and increased National Guard presence on the southern border;5 and different states and municipalities began to crack down on immigrants in various ways, including English-only laws,6 the increased use of E-Verify (a program that verifies a potential employee’s citizenship), expedited deportation, as well as increased numbers of deportations.7 The self-evidence with which it has been asserted that immigration, and particularly unauthorized entry, constituted major problems meant that there was a backlash with little recognition of this fact.8 This has been the case even though today’s backlash is reminiscent of those during other periods in American history, drawing on the same stereotypes and worries. But perhaps because the United States is facing a new problem—terrorism and the accompanying “war on terror”— today’s measures are viewed not as reactionary, but rather as “responsible” and getting “serious” about immigration.9 As in other recent time periods,10 however, the “problem” is narrowly construed. It seems that the debates on immigration in the new millennium have left people in two camps. On the one hand, proponents of immigration argue that the United States should continue to allow immigrants to enter because they are necessary for the workforce. This group is bipartisan and sees immigration as necessary for the low-tier labor market and to maintain American 2 american immigration after 1996 international economic competitiveness. On the other, there are those who would significantly decrease immigration, build a wall between the United States and Mexico, and increase scrutiny of any remaining immigrants to the United States. For example, one proposal from 2005 included making unauthorized entry a felony, making the provision of aid to any unauthorized entrant a felony, expedited deportation, prohibiting states to grant sanctuary to suspected illegals,11 and, most notably, increasing surveillance of all entrants, augmenting law enforcement, and building the aforementioned wall.12 While the first group appears to be more humane toward immigrants and tolerant of their presence, their proposals for the guest-worker program, for example, show that they are much closer to the second group in their desire for surveillance, easier deportation procedures, and weak labor standards that lead to worker exploitation.13 Alternatively, the second group’s concerns are seemingly limited to worries about national security, but their calls for increased surveillance, a wall, and other measures that militarize the southern border ensure that those who work here do so in unfree conditions . In effect, these proposals are really two sides of the same coin, with the only real difference being how many immigrants can enter legally.14 What these debates tell us is that old stereotypes about immigrants are being redeployed in a time of “war”: a war without borders, which has not been officially declared, and yet is being used to justify the suspension of civil rights and the Geneva Conventions. The wars on terror, drugs, and narcoterrorism allow for new power dynamics that will ensure that immigrants’ rights and political needs cannot be met by the nation-state. The continued merging of immigration policy with anti-terror provisions has led to increased arrests of immigrants, harsh treatment of unauthorized entrants, and charges of racial profiling. In one recent case, the interpreter Erik Camayd-Freixas noted that the treatment of 297 undocumented workers in Postville, Iowa, by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials went far beyond the “crimes” these individuals committed. Camayd-Freixas contends that “according to its new paradigm, the agency [ICE] fancies that it can conflate the diverse aspects of its operations and pretend that immigration enforcement is really part and parcel of the ‘war on terror.’ This way, statistics in the former translate as evidence of success in the latter. Thus, the Postville charges—document fraud and identity theft—treat every illegal alien as a potential terrorist, and with the...