PeaceVoice
Immigrationspeak
Andrew Moss
(10/1) Whether or not Donald Trump
continues in office in the near future, he has already
contributed to a language of immigration that's both
larger than him and that will outlast him. The language is
spoken by members of the Trump administration and its
allies in the media and in restrictionist think tanks.
Grounded in a narrative of threat from within and without,
it's a language that sanctions and rationalizes violence
against immigrants. For convenience's sake, I'll call it "immigrationspeak."
Immigrationspeak ranges in
register from the inflammatory to the cool. Inflammatory
language has been central to Donald Trump's rhetoric since
the day he announced his candidacy, declaring that Mexico
is ". . . sending people that have lots of problems, and
they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing
drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some,
I assume, are good people." Since then he has continued to
frame an incendiary narrative of menace, tweeting on
several occasions that caravans of Central American
migrants constituted "invasions" of the U.S. border.
Trump isn't the only one to
contribute significantly to a narrative of menace. Often
in the cooler language of policy analysis, think tanks
like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
and NumbersUSA have been depicting a wide range of threats
– to the environment, to Americans' jobs and safety, to
the economy in general – that can only be countered by
substantial restrictions on immigration.
By itself, a narrative of threat
won't advance an immigration agenda as ambitious as this
administration's. Immigrationspeak requires a veneer of
legality, a vocabulary of criminalization, to move its
agenda forward. Within five days of Trump's inauguration,
the White House issued an executive order, "Enhancing
Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," that
rescinded Obama-era enforcement priorities focusing
principally on undocumented persons who committed violent
crimes. By removing these priorities, the Trump
administration widened the net of potential enforcement to
all of the 10.7 million people living in the U.S. without
documentation. How to label these persons? "Removable
aliens."
Lest there was any ambiguity about
the change, the then-Acting Director of ICE, Thomas D.
Homan, stated at a hearing in Washington, "If you're in
this country illegally, and you committed a crime by
entering this country, you should be uncomfortable. You
should look over your shoulder." Soon after the issuance
of the executive order, the administration began sweeping
people up in ICE raids: a restaurant worker and father of
four, an evangelical Guatemalan minister, a student
activist. These were people I knew, or came to know, in my
own community in Los Angeles. Similar apprehensions were
occurring all over the country.
But interior enforcement is just
one part of a vast picture, and legalistic language just
one instrument in the immigrationspeak toolbox. Falsehood,
denial, and a faux humanitarianism play significant roles
too, particularly in advancing a policy of aggressive
deterrence at the border. When the administration provoked
outrage last year by separating migrant children from
their parents, by incarcerating children in cages, and by
denying them basic necessities like soap, toothbrushes, or
beds, administrative spokespersons like former Homeland
Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen argued that the
children were being used by smugglers and traffickers to
get into the country illegally. As she attempted to
explain, "we are trying to protect the children, which is
why I'm asking Congress to act. We are a country of
compassion. We are a country of heart."
As these tools haven't succeeded
in quelling outrage, the administration has turned to
other devices. Silence and secrecy also play their role,
as when journalists and other observers are denied access
to the new "tent courts" set up at the border to expedite
hearings for asylum seekers stuck in Mexico under the
administration's controversial "Remain in Mexico" policy.
Fences, locked gates, and barbed wire also constitute a
language of their own.
One can only assume that the
current administration would like to see immigrationspeak
become a lingua franca: a common way of speaking,
thinking, and writing about immigration. But America
remains a stubbornly multilingual nation. Dialects of
defiance and resistance haven't been suppressed. I
recently attended an immigration rights rally in Los
Angeles, where a young woman, one of the organizers of the
event, got up and said: "I may not be able to vote, but
that won't stop me from getting out the vote. I am
undocumented, but that won't stop me from continuing to
speak out and organize."
Andrew Moss is an emeritus professor of English & Nonviolence Studies
at the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Read other articles by Andrew Moss
Read other PeaceVoice Articles