No one referred to undocumented immigrants as “illegals” before 1950. That conversation was much more racialized and much more likely to emphasize the alleged genetic inferiority of out-groups: Catholics, Chinese, Mexicans. (Because Mexicans seemed more likely to go home and less likely to intermarry, many elites actually preferred them to other immigrant groups in the 20s.) It wasn’t about lawbreaking, but about being, contaminating. We can’t have that conversation anymore, at least not openly.
In some obvious sense it’s progress to stop condemning Mexicans for being Mexican and start condemning them for the particular act of traversing a boundary. (I’m stipulating that the professed worries about legality are actually worries about legality–which I think they generally are–and not simply cover for racism.) It’s also more insidious. Poor immigrants without resident family members have virtually no way to work in the country legally, so we’ve criminalized their very presence and participation in the labor market. It’s an invented transgression, but it allows us to continue to say that we hate the sin, not the race of the sinner. It’s easier to cast blame when you’ve identified a particular act; it’s easier to blame a Guatemalan for sneaking past border control than for being born in Guatemala.
Again, I do not think most people who want to reduce current levels of immigration are particularly racist. Most people simply conflate the legal and the moral; most Americans think its wrong to light a joint. But that just speaks to the success of the bogus “illegal” framing and its appeal to anyone with legitimate worries about law and order. Whereas a racist might have some sympathy for a man he thinks inferior–what a pity, to be born stupid and docile–few pro-enforcement types are going to sympathize with a “criminal” who didn’t “wait his turn in line.” There is no line for the unskilled without family in the United States, but we want immigrants to have wronged us in some small way so the act of denying them access to the labor market will seem more just. I’m willing to call that progress, but it’s strange and slow and frustrating.
“I do not think most people who want to reduce current levels of immigration are particularly racist…..”
I think I can honestly say that I have NEVER heard anyone argue the point that immigration needs to be reduced (except from various corners from the left who are trying to take arguments from the right against “illegal immigration” out of context). If anything, I’ve heard intelligent arguments about why the levels of “legal immigration” needs to be increased (for immigrants with pre-defined skill sets that we need…..and I’m not talking about female fashion models).
Perhaps the reason no one was calling immigration “illegal” before the 1950′s was because the country (and the world) had truly finally emerged from the depression (and WWII, of course), and the on-going economic growth could easily absorb them………just a thought…..
According to Pew 40% of Americans think levels of legal immigration are too high.
Huh, jwh? One of the more prominent anti-immigration organizations is the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which, “seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.” (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_aboutmain)
That allows immigration at about the same rate as emigration (zero net migration). FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, and some others are all about reducing immigration and population growth. Also, the 300,000/year rate was “traditional” when the country was much smaller.
People don’t have to be racist to want fewer people, of course. I think a lot of people like legal immigrants of any background, but don’t like illegal immigrants or continuing non-”traditional” immigration levels. Such people are still pro-immigrant or pro-immigration (no one’s demanding -1 net migration or anything) in a technical sense.
The issue does draw a lot of attention as the economy goes down. Demand for labor force exclusion of illegals and workplace document verification didn’t even get going until after the “malaise” of the late 70′s.
Since the issue isn’t, for the most part, people caught sneaking across a border, I don’t think a “law and order” analogy to lighting a joint is best. It’s more like a DUI (of marijuana) for having lit the joint three weeks earlier .
I certainly agree, especially that “it’s strange and slow and frustrating.” But that is true of a lot of things, far too many people think laws are just and true simply by virtue of being laws.
“undocumented immigrant”? Talk about bogus framing!