Immigration Group

I have enjoyed and learned from the podcast on the language to use when speaking about immigrants. Of course I agree with all those who have persuasively argued that calling them “illegal aliens” not only is an expression of racist attitudes but also may contribute to spreading and confirming these attitudes in society. It is totally irrelevant whether they are in fact “illegal” (and “aliens”), because it is the conditions and implications of such use and its association with racist ideologies that makes its use racist. It is not just the words or their meanings that you need to take into account, but also their context: who says what with what goals, etc. In any case, there are many other designations that do not carry these negative implications, such as “undocumented immigrant” - which emphasizes that WE did not yet give them papers. Here in Spain we call them simply “sin papeles” (without papers). The general ethical rule is this: You call people how THEY want to be called. So, if you (still) use, say, “Negro” instead of, say “African American” in the United States, you know that because of elementary principles of the sociology of language you are engaging in a form of racism. And the logic is this: Who has the power? Who is dominant? So, to qualify people negatively who do not have the power, may contribute to the confirmation of inequality, and that is wrong. This is why, conversely, using critical negative descriptions for people in a dominant position and who abuse of their power, is NOT a problem, because it it challenges their power abuse, and that is fine. So, there is no problem to talk about racist practices (news reporting, government, etc.).
The way we call people of other groups is part of a much more general problem: how “we” talk and write about “them”. Such discourse is part of the very structure of racism as a system of ethnic domination and inequality, consisting of (a) racist practices: discrimination, and (b) racist cognition: prejudices, racist ideologies. Discourse is the social practice that is able to discriminate other people (e.g. by negative labels, and so on), and at the same time may reproduce racist ideologies. It is therefore central in the reproduction of racism.

My work since more than 20 years has been focused on the study of racist discourse (see my website for details, bibliographies, papers, etc: www.discourses.org). I show how for political discourse, media discourse, textbooks, everyday storytelling, etc etc. detailed and subtle properties of discourse, especially of the elites, may contribute to the reproduction of racism in society. I am less interested in the obvious right wing discourses we all recognize as racist, but rather in the everyday discourses of our “own” institution, newspaper, etc.

Using words like “illegal alien” is just one minor aspect of such discriminatory discourses. It is important how in many other ways we may discriminate against other by text or talk: our topics, headlines, metaphors, ways of describing people, and so on. The general strategy of all this racist discourse is the following:

Emphasize Their Bad things and Our Good Things

Deemphasize Our Bad Things and Their Good Things

One of the ways dominant discourse de-emphasizes our bad things is through the denial of racism, which is classical in elite discourse: media, scholarship, politics, etc.

If you want to correspond with me about this, please be welcome: teun at discourses dot org

Teun A. van Dijk

Pompeu Fabra University

dept. of Translation and Philology

Barcelona, Spain.

I tried to comment on a post and my entry disappeared. So, here it is as an entry.

I’m glad that Prof. Buonfino brought up international issues to the discussion. Although, given how we’ve undermined the U.N., I doubt that its efforts will prove popular here! Unfortunate, because this is not just a U.S. issue. The international dimension is most often ignored in our media’s reporting, and in what passes for political commentary and analysis (or is covered under the threat of “balkanization”). NAFTA, international migrant flows, etc. could be good issues for a future podcast. I also agree that the conversation around “alien” was a good point of the podcast. Adding a bit of complexity by folding in legal understanding of “alien” with its other understandings of alterity, would be good.

What is being orchestrated in this country is an old drama, a moral panic around the issue of immigration, that goes like this: The alarm has been sounded that we are under invasion by a horde of different folks that, with little prospect or interest in assimilation, and constituting a criminal class, posits a clear and present danger to our values, our economic and political life, our wages, and the national security of “real” Americans. This tide of brown people are sneaking in and taking our jobs, destroying our communities, putting the nation at risk, and we must act now or else we will be overrun by them. The solution is to find them, deport them, seal our borders, and be ever vigilant that only the right people are let in.

Along with this moral panic script comes a Jeremiad about how we’ve strayed from bedrock American values, and why, unless we act now, we stand to see America transformed into a den of iniquity. The American national body, this Jeremiad implies, is being contaminated and must be rendered whole again by excising the contaminants (Hutchinson 1981, 163-168).The immigrant becomes the handy scapegoat in this Jeremiad.

There is also an almost “abject hero” notion at play, or at least provocative contradictions that are not always clearly highlighted in our media: the hardworking Mexican folks who do the tough work others will not do, for measly wages, helping our economy, with strong family values, exemplifying the “coming to America” myth… while at the same time they are poor, of little education, of suspect ethnicity and language, dark looks, covetous of what “we” have, reproducing like rabbits… and, coming to America!

I think the pendulum has swung from emphasizing the first part to giving lots of texture to the second one – now tinged with the hue of national security concerns. An area I’m pursuing for a paper is what kind of articulation(s) allows/allowed these two to co-exist — what stabilized them, and what ruptured that temporary fixing.

By the way, the podcast is a neat effort that I will use as example for my Latino/a Voices in the U.S. class. Thanks.

I enjoyed listening to the podcast on immigration by the students of the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Initiative. I thought it was a thought-provoking and original way to discuss the current politicisation of immigration politics. Unfortunately, nowadays one cannot open a newspaper or listen to the radio without reading or hearing stories about ‘bogus asylum seekers’; ‘illegal aliens’; ‘extra-comunitari’.

These are intentional and powerful labels that enact a sort of de-humanisation of migration - they describe objects and numbers (rather than people) and highlight their being ‘purposefully outside the law’ (illegal), ’scheming and deceiving’ (bogus) and ‘outside’ our community (extra comunitari). I like the way the students compared immigrants to ‘aliens’, beings that we fear but we know nothing about. De-humanising immigrants is a powerful political tool for justifying strict immigration policies.

Language plays a key role in the way public opinion constructs a phenomenon. In the case of immigration – a language of ‘numbers’ and ‘floods’ and a language of ‘illegality’ really does play a very significant part in articulating people’s opinions and forming their understanding of migration. Certainly, as Gamson discussed in 1992, the process of opinion formation is more complex than that (people condition media information with some sort of reflection on their own experiences) but nonetheless a discourse of this kind leaves very little space for empathy and for clear understanding of the stories and the reasons why people migrate in the first place. The result is that all too often, debates on immigration are primarily driven by fears or by the latest scandal. Thankfully, around the world, international organisations like the ILO, the IOM, and the UN are bringing to the fore discourses on immigration that focus on the economic benefit of immigration, human rights and development. See for example the UN High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development, September 2006, a powerful initiative that discussed the complex and multidimensional aspects of immigration.

A question that we must start to ask ourselves in prosperous western societies is – how can we actively reach a wider understanding of the complex issue of migration?

- Dr. Alessandra Buonfino

I want to post on a few things related to the podcast, but first let me add this commentary on the use of the phrase illegal. I wrote this a bit back, and although needing some re-thinking, I offer it to spur some thought.

- Nacho

The primary rhetorical strategy used by many who argue against illegal immigration relies on the words “illegal,” or “illegals,” and the phrase “illegal alien” to effect a reduction of the issues at stake and circumscribe the arguments and problems associated with immigration policy in this country. In turn, that strategy relies on the apparent force of the logic of the argument (Those who break the law are criminals, illegal aliens break the law, therefore…) to show how the issue of illegal immigration is “straightforward.” The resulting and proposed formulation, “if they are illegal, they are criminals,” reduces the debate to a technicist understanding of the law as the amoral epitome of rational efficiency. From this vantage point no distinctions are admitted, a guest worker program is considered amnesty, and people seeking a better life for their children, criminals.

This strategy masks the complexity of historical U.S. immigration and economic policy that has exacerbated the problem, disregards the pernicious social consequences of using the word “illegals,” provides comfort to nativists, and hampers our ability to arrive at a humane resolution of this dilemma.

As used by the U.S. government, “alien” describes those people that are foreign-born, neither citizens by parentage or naturalization. Alien also carries many negative connotations, including non-terrestrial, conflictual, adverse, hostile, and strange. In a post 9/11 world, aliens are increasingly seen as the enemy within, a threat to national security, and a drain on national resources, thus not only unsuitable for citizenship, but constituting a class of “deportable” people.

When combined with the word “illegal,” the phrase “illegal alien” not only dehumanizes but also criminalizes. This ignores that current U.S. law considers undocumented immigrant status a civil violation, not a criminal one. After all, a large number of undocumented workers in the U.S. are those who have overstayed their visa, and not people who crossed the border to commit crimes. Not surprisingly, non-aliens are portrayed as paragons of virtue, not only belonging, but also not criminals, security threats, or hostile, and thus “more” deserving of justice and respite from the arguable “burden” illegal immigration poses on them.

This rhetoric of “illegal” status does a disservice to those who by virtue of looking or sounding a particular way, get easily stereotyped and discriminated against. Such language perpetuates suspicion and distrust, and reinforces stereotypes. Farfetched? Think again. Last April at the Immigration rally on the Capitol grounds here in Oregon nobody asked me if I was illegal, yet people not two steps from me with darker skin, were told “if you are illegal go home and come back legally.” In another instance, a harried looking man and woman asked me if I could direct them to the counter-demonstration. It was clear to me that they didn’t feel comfortable asking any of the “Mexican-looking” folks around them.

We all have a stake in crafting a better world and a good life. Mindful consideration of the language we use can facilitate resolutions consistent with humanitarian values, and with the dignity and respect we all deserve.
- Professor Nathaniel Cordova

The podcast discussion of what to call migrants who enter a country unlawfully raises a host of interesting questions. Many of the speakers seemed hostile to the implications drawn from the use of “illegal” to construct a frame of criminality. While it may accurately describe the mode of entry, it also stigmatizes and dehumanizes the migrants by excluding them and identifying them as a criminal and excludable group. Given that, are there other ways to construct the migrants’ identity?

Fortunately, the answer is yes. Law enforcement/criminality is only one possible frame from which to approach the migration issue. Human rights discourse provides a viable alternative. Many nongovernmental organizations and some countries are using human rights discourse (often culled from international law) to change the debate. One example is the United Nations Convention to Protect the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families which can be accessed here. Another example is the Forced Labour convention which condemns the slavery like conditions that many migrant workers face and focuses on providing them protection rather than on the act that brought them into the country. That document can be found here.

I believe it is a mistake to focus on the individual’s illegal entrance (and it is worth noting that sometimes individuals are forced to enter rather than making a decision to enter). Instead, it is important to recognize that the countries that pull in immigrants bear responsibility for their protection and well-being. Immigrants, legally entering or not, are like us, they are part of a shared humanity and deserve recognition of that humanity. This is not to say that we must have open borders, only that the focus on criminality can obscure other obligations of our country and our community.

I am currently writing a paper on just this topic. The paper aims raise awareness within the legal community of the role international law can play in promoting and protecting the human rights of all migrants.

Professor Wexler

On Friday, July 21, 2006, the immigration group of the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative taped its podcast performance at Wake Forest University - click on this link to listen to the podcast.

During their week of study, students in the immigration group focused on a particular aspect of the immigration debate - how terminology used in public dialogue (e.g. the phrase “illegal alien”) influences popular understanding and public policy on immigration issues. Their podcast performance takes the form of a simulated radio talk show, with fictional characters calling in to voice their opinions on various topics related to the issue.

The students hope that their performance stimulates informative and engaging dialogue on the issue of immigration discourse with the invited expert guest commenters, each of whom have generously agreed to listen to the podcast and provide their feedback here on this Weblog. In the coming days and weeks, check back often to follow discussion stimulated by the feedback from the expert commenters: Dr. Nathaniel Cordova, assistant professor of rhetoric and media studies at Willamette University; Dr. James Arnt Aune, professor of communication at Texas A & M University; Dr. Teun van Dijk, professor of discourse analysis at the University of Amsterdam; Dr. Alessandra Buonfino, research associate at the Young Foundation; Lesley Wexler, J.D., assistant professor of law at Florida State University; and Ariane Chebel-d’Appollonia, a senior researcher at CEVIPOF, a research institute of the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris.

As the number of immigrants from Latin America and Asia has increased, many Americans have felt the presence of another culture in their community. In 1995, many people were disturbed to see some recent immigrants taking the U.S. naturalization pledge in Spanish rather than English. Although every immigrant who wishes to become a citizen must prove proficiency and literacy in English—the citizenship exam is administered in English—some people are still more comfortable speaking thier native language. Responding to some U.S. citizens’ concerns, certain members of Congress advocated that the United States adopt English as its official language.

Supporters of adopting English as the country’s official language believe that having a recognized common language would encourage immigrants to learn English. Proponents of this idea worry that the country is becoming more segregated and that people live in “linguistic ghettos.” They argue that a common language would enable people in a diverse nation to communicate with others more effectively and would help unify the nation. In addition, some English-only proponents contend that taxpayers’ money is wasted printing government forms and providing services in other languages. They maintain that the U.S. government should instead allocate these funds to teach English to immigrants, so the newcomers can find jobs and assimilate into American society.

There is a lot of discussion about what to call people who are not citizens of the USA. To me, actually, there is no difference. English is not my native language, so I don’t see a difference between “illegal alien” and “immigrant” or other descriptions. In my country, we don’t have many immigrants. So, all of us who are not legal are called “immigrants,” and people who are from other countries “aliens.” So,what is the difference between all of these words? And why it is so important to find “correct” word?

Today in our class we were discussing about “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens.” We were talking about how it makes “them” almost non-human, but people think that’s what “they” should be called because people believe that they broke the law and should be put in jail or taken back to thier original countries. Right now I’m netrual because breaking the law is wrong, but I also think that they shouldn’t be dehumanized and looked at as a thing, but as a person. Here is a reference on “language” (the definitions of common names for “them.”) Here is a reference on more “language“( what the term “illegal alien” means to people and not the definition). But as you can see I’ve been using the term “them” becuase I dont know what to call “them” even though they broke the law they did it to have a better life with less poverty or no poverty at all ,which can’t be achieved in less than 4 years not including the costs most people can’t pay, so what do we call “them”; that is the question.