This week, we will be having a tri-DeCal with two other Alternative Breaks trips - Central Valley, which is focusing on migrant labor, and Arizona, which is focusing on immigration in Arizona. We will also be welcoming a guest speaker, Professor Alex Saragoza from the Ethnic Studies Department. Our theme for the week is past and current immigration policy and how these policies have contributed to creating a physical and figurative border between the U.S. and Mexico, between nativism and other-ness.
To that end, our readings are Chapter 2 of Joseph Nevins's Operation Gatekeeper, and this fact sheet on SB1070. Please respond to these readings by posting a 1-2 paragraph answer in the comments section of this entry.
In your response, you may point out anything that stood out to you from the readings and how they relate to your lived experiences. You may also use these questions to guide you:
-What political and socioeconomic contexts gave rise to Operation Gatekeeper and SB1070?
-What similarities/differences do you see between these two acts?
-How has the image of Tijuana as a city of "vice"and "sin," particularly during the Prohibition era in the United States, created and reinforced the idea of a border and of Mexico as a foreign country?
Your response is not limited to these questions by any means, but they can serve as a starting point to guide your thoughts.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
As I read the SB1070 fact sheet, the most obvious thing that stood out to me was the amount of interpretation and discretion in identifying illegal immigrants that was left to the officers that would be enforcing the law. Officials would have to made a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of an individual if they had “reasonable suspicion.” These terms essentially allow state law enforcement officials to determine for themselves who looks like they may be in Arizona illegally and allows them to decide what they deem reasonable. The law sets up state restrictions on federal immigration law, and although ICE is the primary authority in enforcing immigration laws, this law would allow state and political subdivisions to encroach on the jurisdiction of this agency. Furthermore, it prompts the question of what exactly a “political subdivision” is since they possess enforcement authority along with state law enforcement.
The idea of Tijuana as a center for “vice” has reinforced the idea of the physical and social border and distinguished Mexico from the United States. This concept originated in the early twentieth century when Southern California voted “dry.” Since Tijuana did not have a ban on alcohol, and in fact a large amount of revenue was produced from alcohol-related businesses, this set them apart from their US counterparts and made them a center for possible indulgence in the “vice” of alcohol consumption. Besides alcohol, the border was also a place where Chinese immigration and opium trafficking occurred, two other things the United States was opposed to. The illegal drug trade across the border began with legal crossing of marijuana in the 1800s, when the substance was regarded as a cure for various illnesses.
In Nevin's article, he wrote about Tijuana turning into a "sin city" in the time period between 1900 and in the early 1920's. He speaks about the immense prosperity, revenue, and growth of the city followed by a tragic and harsh economic collapse during the United States' Great Depression of 1929. He writes, "Many establishments closed their doors, leading to a rapid rise in unemployment and out-migration from the border city" (43). In this build up and great demise of Tijuana, uniquely and solely caused by the economic state of the U.S., is a strong parallel to the great changes that occurred in Cuba at the same time, that also had drastic impacts on their economy, society, and politics. The effects of U.S. exploitation and economic domination of Tijuana and Havana draw clear ties to the state of immigration in both countries. However, what is interesting is, while Mexican immigrants currently struggle in gaining American citizenship, Cubans have far less of a problem and are able to more quickly and efficiently obtaining a green card. In comparing how the U.S. controlled and dominated Havana and Tijuana's economy through flourishing tourism followed by tough economic times, it is very interesting how the power structures with each of those countries and the U.S. have significantly changed.
While the U.S. was able to dominate both countries in early 1900's, Cuba holds a more threatening position to the U.S., whereas the U.S. presumes a more dominate, superior role in its relationship with Mexico. The obvious indicator of the difference between the two has to do with political ideology, which, poses the question: if Mexico had not accepted democracy or was not currently democratic (like Cuba), would their immigration policy be different?
Reading Nevins’ “Operation Gatekeeper” I realized that the “border” is not physical, but more of a socially constructed phenomena. There is no geographical landmark that divides Mexico from the US, rather it was people’s beliefs about the differences between those that belonged and those that didn’t that created this “border” between the US and Mexico. Because Mexico met the demand of people who wanted alcohol during the Prohibition Era in the United States, a border was created that separated the “pure” from the “impure.” Establishing a border between the US and Mexico was an attempt by the United States to maintain the “sins” of the Mexican border cities away from the Americans. In my belief, doing this only exacerbated the racial division between Mexicans and Americans, saying that Americans were “pure” while Mexicans were “impure” because they were simply satisfying American demand for alcohol and other “vices”.
In addition to the creation of the border, the United States also labeled Mexicans as “illegal aliens” who did not belong in the United States. The labeling of Mexicans as illegal upsets me because it is simply a consequence of the establishment of the border as a line between right and wrong. Not only has the border caused labeling of people but it has also created differences between people in neighboring cities that did not exist before this barrier was drawn across their town. All of a sudden those who had the misfortune to be south of the border were labeled as illegal if they tried to cross into the neighborhood that was once also their own community. How were they any different than the people who lived a bit further north and were legal?
As I read the SB1070 fact sheet, I started to think about how much I despise the term “alien.” I find this term so demeaning and unnecessary, personally I prefer the term undocumented. I feel that the term “alien” has a more negative connotation than that of undocumented. The reading by Nevin’s added to my upset, because he makes it clear that this term is a social construct due to the boundary of Tijuana and San Diego.
The section that stood out to me the most was “Unlawful Transporting,” in the SB1070 reading. This is because I felt that it makes undocumented people seem like criminals, because it basically says that it is “unlawful” to hide an undocumented person from authorities. This idea to me seems really extreme. Another part from that section that stood out to me as well was when it says that it is “unlawful” to encourage or help a person reside in Arizona if they are undocumented. I feel that this is a violation of our rights, because it seems as if the government wants to have complete control over our actions and speech, because we should be free to “encourage” or discourage whoever we want to come to America.
SB1070 rose out of the hysteria of an economic depression, violence along the border, and racism, which in the end has been cultivated by lack of interaction and understanding of immigrants by the general ‘White America.’
It seems like Operation Gatekeeper rose from the association Americans make with Tijuana and ‘vices.’ I find this kind of ironic because, when prohibition was passed, Americans would go to TJ to drink. So Americans criticized TJ instead of those who went to a different country on the weekends to have a drink. Did the US criticize European countries for selling alcohol?
With SB1070, I think the racism behind it has come from all of the stereotypes and prejudices Americans have had with Mexico. America has painted this dirty and criminal picture of Mexico, and so these false characteristics have also been placed upon Mexicans and those of Mexican descent. Sometimes I feel like these stereotypes help fuel a sense of nationalism in some Americans because they have this idea of ‘keeping America pure,” or protecting America from adopting stereotypical characteristics of other countries. By creating a specific, negative identity on others, an opposite identity can form and create nationalism. One can create a more specific idea of ‘us’ if there is specific criteria that is ‘not us,’ or in this case a ‘them.’
So by creating these ideas of what “America should be,” whether it be pro-prohibition, white, clean, pure, we force characteristics of what America ‘isn’t’ or ‘shouldn’t be’ on Mexico in order to create a specific American identity and reinforce a hierarchal structure that places White America on top. By blowing up these ‘differences,’ it is easier to create a border because those in power can use excuses to create check points and legislation that ‘filters’ people or that actively labels people every day.
For example, with SB1070, the E-Verify system gives the government an opportunity to say, “yup, she is American and that other woman isn’t.” As we cross the border, we show passports and have to be checked just so we can be reminded who is American and who is not, who deserves to be in the US and who does not, who is a potential threat to the US and who is not. Just by pointing out ‘differences’ based on consistently vocalized set of accepted characteristics, a border can be created. The use of systems to actively point those ‘differences’ out is what creates a physical border.
As I read Joseph Nevins chapter on “Local Context and the Creation of Difference in the Border Region”, I realized that the physical fence that is seen today on the US-Mexico border is nothing more than a boundary that has been constructed and imposed by society. The image of Tijuana as a city of “vice” and “sin” was created during the Prohibition era in the United States and since then has reinforced the idea of a border and of Mexico as a foreign country by marking distinctiveness, immorality and thus allowing these stark demarcations to clearly mark the international divide. As I was reading this, I was able to grasp an understanding of the emotions involved in the present day issues with immigration and the increased border enforcement.
I found it ironic that Tijuana was portrayed as a city of “vice” and “sin” leaving this immorality and so-called “wrong doing” to the inhabitants of Tijuana and thus spreading to Mexicans as a general whole. When in reality, the majority of these people participating in these acts that were prohibited in the US, were Americans. It gives an example of supply and demand. Prohibition eliminated all of these “vices” for Americans so Tijuana decided to transform itself into a tourist location in an effort to fill this demand that Americans wanted. This shows an example of how US policy directly influences Mexico. Throughout this part of Nevins reading, I constantly kept on connecting it back in my mind to the current issue of drug trafficking. By this, I mean that immorality and ideas of “vice” and “sin” are solely and entirely still implicated on the people in Mexico and not really addressing the issue of the people on the north side (Americans) and their continual consumption. This idea of “vice” and “sin” I feel has greatly played a role in immigration policy and the U.S use of “illegality”, “alien”, always hesitant to reach a sort of cooperation in policy amongst both countries because the US has developed a mentality of Mexico on primarily the basis of this region of “sin city”, and attempting to deter a population that is filled with “vices” and “sins”. This also reminded me of another reading I had for another one of my other classes by Octavio Paz in which he writes about the culture of Mexicans and how they have developed a strong distrust of Americans and are very strong and reluctant to cede easily in any type of agreement between both of the countries. Nevins reinforced this idea when he discussed the arbitration over the line, as well as the fact that the US took San Diego (an important port vital for trade) from Mexico.
In reading the Nevins' article, a foundation is laid down that allowes one to describe the American relationship to the border as utter hypocrisy. In the border that separates Mexico and the U.S., it was not always a unilateral desire to migrate North, but as Nevins illustrates, the Americans were crossing the border to realize their repressed desires. Willingly, with the benefits well defined, Mexico opened its doors to the Americans seeking forbidden pleasures. However, through de facto racism, Americans constantly choose to ignore the economic benefit of Mexicans crossing the border North. At times, I sincerely desire that illegal immigrants in the U.S. would leave so that once and for all anti-immigration advocates can stop bringing up the negative economic impact as their motivation.
Another interesting point is the development of the border as a real separation between the U.S. and Mexico. It is crazy to think that only 80 years ago one could describe the geography "as if the border did not exist". However, in contrast, the region was long before been characteristic of military defense,so that almost as a foreshadowing metaphor, the San Diego area has been destined to be a war zone, whereby American paranoia is realized. There is no denying that much of the controversy that surrounds the border can be explained through a closer look at history. The presence of American nationalism in a territory so unjustly taken away from Mexico is an overt example of the American hypocrisy and oxymoron that governs anti-immigration sentiments.
Post a Comment