-
We often hear these days
that the immigration system is broken.
-
I want to make the case today that
our immigration conversation is broken
-
and to suggest some ways that together
we might build a better one.
-
In order to do that, I'm going
to propose some new questions
-
about immigration,
-
the United States and the world,
-
questions that might move the borders
of the immigration debate.
-
I'm not going to begin with the feverish
argument that we're currently having,
-
even as the lives and wellbeing
of immigrants are being put at risk
-
at the US borders and far beyond it.
-
Instead I'm going to begin
with me in graduate school
-
in New Jersey in the mid-1990s
earnestly studying US history,
-
which is what I currently
teach as a professor
-
at Vanderbilt University
in Nashville, Tennessee.
-
And when I wasn't studying,
-
sometimes to avoid
writing my dissertation,
-
my friends and I would go into town
-
to hand out neon-colored flyers
-
protesting legislation
-
that was threatening to take away
immigrants' rights.
-
Our flyers were sincere,
they were well-meaning,
-
they were factually accurate,
-
but I realize now they were also
kind of a problem.
-
Here's what they said:
-
"Don't take away immigrant rights
to public education,
-
to medical services,
to the social safety net.
-
They work hard. They pay taxes.
-
They're law-abiding.
-
They use social services
less than Americans do.
-
They're eager to learn English,
-
and their children serve
in the US military all over the world."
-
Now these are of course arguments
that we hear every day.
-
Immigrants and their advocates use them
-
as they confront those who would
deny immigrants their rights
-
or even exclude them from society.
-
And up to a certain point,
it makes perfect sense
-
that these would be the kinds of claims
that immigrants' defenders would turn to.
-
But in the long term,
and maybe even in the short term,
-
I think these arguments
can be counterproductive.
-
Why?
-
Because it's always an uphill battle
-
to defend yourself
on your opponents' terrain,
-
and, unwittingly,
-
the handouts that my friends
and I were handing out
-
and the versions of these arguments
that we hear today,
-
we're actually playing
the anti-immigrants' game.
-
We were playing that game
in part by envisioning
-
that immigrants were outsiders,
-
rather than, as I'm hoping
to suggest in a few minutes,
-
people that are already,
in important ways, on the inside.
-
Not Synced
It's those who are hostile
to immigrants, the nativists,
-
Not Synced
who have succeeded
in framing the immigration debate
-
Not Synced
around three main questions.
-
Not Synced
First, there's the question of whether
immigrants can be useful tools.
-
Not Synced
How can we use immigrants?
-
Not Synced
Will they make us richer and stronger?
-
Not Synced
The nativist answer
to this question is no,
-
Not Synced
immigrants have little
or nothing to offer.
-
Not Synced
The second questions is whether
immigrants are others.
-
Not Synced
Can immigrants become more like us?
-
Not Synced
Are they capable of becoming more like us?
Are they capable of assimilating?
-
Not Synced
Are they willing to assimilate?
-
Not Synced
Here, again, the nativist answer is no,
-
Not Synced
immigrants and permanently
different from us and inferior to us.
-
Not Synced
And the third question is whether
immigrants are parasites.
-
Not Synced
Are they dangerous to us?
And will they drain our resources?
-
Not Synced
Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes,
-
Not Synced
immigrants pose a threat
and they sap our wealth.
-
Not Synced
I would suggest that these three questions
and the nativist animus behind them
-
Not Synced
have succeeded in framing the larger
contours of the immigration debate.
-
Not Synced
These questions are anti-immigrant
and nativist at their core,
-
Not Synced
built around a kind of hierarchical
division of insiders and outsiders,
-
Not Synced
us and them,
-
Not Synced
in which only we matter and they don't.
-
Not Synced
And what gives these questions
traction and power
-
Not Synced
beyond the circle of committed nativists
is the way that they tap into
-
Not Synced
an everyday, seemingly harmless
sense of national belonging
-
Not Synced
and activate it, heighten it,
-
Not Synced
and inflame it.
-
Not Synced
Nativists commit themselves
to making stark distinctions
-
Not Synced
between insiders and outsiders,
-
Not Synced
but the distinction itself is at the heart
of the way nations define themselves.
-
Not Synced
The fissures between inside and outside,
-
Not Synced
which often run deepest
along lines of race and religion,
-
Not Synced
are always there to be
deepened and exploited.
-
Not Synced
And that potentially
gives nativist approaches
-
Not Synced
far beyond those who consider
themselves anti-immigrant,
-
Not Synced
and remarkably even among some
who consider themselves pro-immigrant.
-
Not Synced
So, for example,
-
Not Synced
when immigrants act allies
-
Not Synced
answer these questions
the nativists are posing,
-
Not Synced
they take them seriously.
-
Not Synced
They legitimate those questions,
and, to some extent,
-
Not Synced
the anti-immigrant assumptions
that are behind them.
-
Not Synced
When we take these questions seriously
without even knowing it,
-
Not Synced
we're reinforcing the closed,
exclusionary borders
-
Not Synced
of the immigration conversation.
-
Not Synced
So how did we get here?
-
Not Synced
How did these become the leading ways
that we talk about immigration?
-
Not Synced
Here we need some backstory, which is
where my history training comes in.
-
Not Synced
During the first century
-
Not Synced
of the US's status
as an independent nation,
-
Not Synced
it did very little to restrict
immigration at the national level.
-
Not Synced
In fact, many policymakers
and employers worked hard
-
Not Synced
to recruit immigrants
-
Not Synced
to build up industry
-
Not Synced
and to serve as settlers,
to seize the continent.
-
Not Synced
But after the Civil War,
-
Not Synced
nativist voices rose
in volume and in power.
-
Not Synced
The Asian, Latin American,
Caribbean and European immigrants
-
Not Synced
who dug Americans' canals,
-
Not Synced
cooked their dinners,
-
Not Synced
fought their wars,
-
Not Synced
and put their children to bed at night,
-
Not Synced
were met with a new and intense xenophobia
-
Not Synced
which cast immigrants
as permanent outsiders
-
Not Synced
who should never be allowed
to become insiders.
-
Not Synced
By the mid-1920s, the nativists had won,
-
Not Synced
erecting racist laws
-
Not Synced
that closed our untold numbers
of vulnerable immigrants and refugees.
-
Not Synced
Immigrants and their allies
did their best to fight back,
-
Not Synced
but they found themselves
on the defensive,
-
Not Synced
caught in some ways
in the nativists' frames.
-
Not Synced
When nativists said
that immigrants weren't useful,
-
Not Synced
their allies said yes, they are.
-
Not Synced
When nativists accused
immigrants of being others,
-
Not Synced
their allies promised
that they would assimilate.
-
Not Synced
When nativists charged that immigrants
were dangerous parasites,
-
Not Synced
their allies emphasized
their loyalty, their obedience,
-
Not Synced
their hard work, and their thrift.
-
Not Synced
Even as advocates welcomed immigrants,
-
Not Synced
many still regarded
immigrants as outsiders
-
Not Synced
to be pitied, to be rescued,
-
Not Synced
to be uplifted and to be tolerated,
-
Not Synced
but never fully brought inside
as equals in rights and respect.
-
Not Synced
After World War II, and especially
from the mid-1960s until really recently,
-
Not Synced
immigrants and their allies
turned the tide,
-
Not Synced
overthrowing mid-20th century restriction
-
Not Synced
and winning instead a new system
that prioritized family reunification,
-
Not Synced
the admission of refugees,
-
Not Synced
and the admission of those
with special skills.
-
Not Synced
But even then,
-
Not Synced
they didn't succeed in fundamentally
changing the terms of the debate,
-
Not Synced
and so that framework endured,
-
Not Synced
ready to be taken up again
in our own convulsive moment.
-
Not Synced
That conversation is broken.
-
Not Synced
The old questions
are harmful and divisive.
-
Not Synced
So how do we get from that conversation
-
Not Synced
to one that's more likely to get us
closer to a world that is fairer,
-
Not Synced
that is more just,
-
Not Synced
that's more secure?
-
Not Synced
I want to suggest that what we have to do
-
Not Synced
is one of the hardest thing
that any society can do:
-
Not Synced
to redraw the boundaries of who counts,
-
Not Synced
of whose life, whose rights,
-
Not Synced
and whose thriving matters.
-
Not Synced
We need to redraw the boundaries.
-
Not Synced
We need to redraw the borders of us.
-
Not Synced
In order to do that, we need to first
take on a worldview that's widely held
-
Not Synced
but also seriously flawed.
-
Not Synced
According to that worldview,
-
Not Synced
there's the inside
of the national boundaries,
-
Not Synced
inside the nation which is where we
live, work and mind our own business,
-
Not Synced
and then there's the outside,
there's everywhere else.
-
Not Synced
According to this worldview,
when immigrants cross into the nation,
-
Not Synced
they're moving from
the outside to the inside,
-
Not Synced
but they remain outsiders.
-
Not Synced
Any power or resources they receive
-
Not Synced
are gifts from us rather than rights.
-
Not Synced
Now it's not hard to see why
this is such a commonly held worldview.
-
Not Synced
It's reinforced in everyday way
that we talk and act and behave
-
Not Synced
down to the bordered maps
that we hang up in our schoolrooms.
-
Not Synced
The problem with this worldview
is that it just doesn't correspond
-
Not Synced
to the way the world actually works
and the way it has worked in the past.
-
Not Synced
Of course, American workers
have built up wealth in society,
-
Not Synced
but so have immigrants,
-
Not Synced
particularly in parts of the American
economy that are indispensable
-
Not Synced
and where few Americans work,
like agriculture.
-
Not Synced
Since the nation's founding,
-
Not Synced
Americans have been inside
the American workforce.
-
Not Synced
Of course, Americans have built up
institutions and society
-
Not Synced
that guaranteed rights,
-
Not Synced
but so have immigrants.
-
Not Synced
They've been there during
every major social movement,
-
Not Synced
like civil rights and organized labor,
-
Not Synced
that have fought to expand
rights and society for everyone.
-
Not Synced
So immigrants are already inside
-
Not Synced
the struggle for rights,
democracy and freedom.
-
Not Synced
And finally, Americans
and other citizens of the Global North
-
Not Synced
haven't minded their own business,
-
Not Synced
and they haven't stayed
within their own borders.
-
Not Synced
They haven't respected
other nations' borders.
-
Not Synced
They've gone out into
the world with their armies,
-
Not Synced
they've taken over
territories and resources,
-
Not Synced
and they've extracted enormous profits
from many of the countries
-
Not Synced
that immigrants are from.
-
Not Synced
In this sense, many immigrants are
actually already inside American power.
-
Not Synced
With this different map
of inside and outside in mind,
-
Not Synced
the question isn't whether
receiving countries
-
Not Synced
are going to let immigrants in.
-
Not Synced
They're already in.
-
Not Synced
The question is whether
the United States and other countries
-
Not Synced
are going to give immigrants
access to the rights and resources
-
Not Synced
that their work, their activism,
and their home countries
-
Not Synced
have already played
a fundamental role in creating.
-
Not Synced
With this new map in mind,
-
Not Synced
we can turn to a set of tough,
new, urgently needed questions
-
Not Synced
radically different from the ones
we've asked before,
-
Not Synced
questions that might change
the borders of the immigration debate.
-
Not Synced
Our three questions are
about workers' rights,
-
Not Synced
about responsibility
-
Not Synced
and about equality.
-
Not Synced
First, we need to be asking
about workers' rights.
-
Not Synced
How do existing policies make it harder
for immigrants to defend themselves
-
Not Synced
and easier for them to be exploited,
-
Not Synced
driving down wages, rights
and protections for everyone?
-
Not Synced
When immigrants are threatened
with roundups, detention and deportations,
-
Not Synced
their employers know
that they can be abused,
-
Not Synced
that they can be told
-
Not Synced
that if they fight back,
they'll be turned over to ICE.
-
Not Synced
When employers know
-
Not Synced
that they can terrorize an immigrant
with his lack of papers,
-
Not Synced
it makes that worker hyper-exploitable,
-
Not Synced
and that has impacts
not only for immigrant workers
-
Not Synced
but for all workers.
-
Not Synced
Second, we need to ask questions
about responsibility.
-
Not Synced
What role have rich, powerful countries
like the United States played
-
Not Synced
in making it hard or impossible
-
Not Synced
for immigrants to stay
in their home countries?
-
Not Synced
Picking up and moving from your country
is difficult and dangerous,
-
Not Synced
but many immigrants simply do not
have the option of staying home
-
Not Synced
if they want to survive.
-
Not Synced
Wars, trade agreements,
-
Not Synced
and consumer habits
rooted in the Global North
-
Not Synced
play a major and devastating role here.
-
Not Synced
What responsibilities
do the United States,
-
Not Synced
the European Union, and China --
-
Not Synced
the world's leading carbon emitters --
-
Not Synced
have to the millions of people
already uprooted by global warming?
-
Not Synced
And third, we need to ask
questions about equality.
-
Not Synced
Global inequality is a wrenching,
intensifying problem.
-
Not Synced
Income and wealth gaps
are widening around the world.
-
Not Synced
Increasingly what determines
whether you're rich or poor
-
Not Synced
more than anything else
is what country you're born in,
-
Not Synced
which might seem great
if you're from a prosperous country,
-
Not Synced
but it actually means
a profoundly unjust distribution
-
Not Synced
of the chances for a long,
healthy, fulfilling life.
-
Not Synced
When immigrants send money
or goods home to their family,
-
Not Synced
it plays a significant role
in narrowing these gaps,
-
Not Synced
if a very incomplete one.
-
Not Synced
It does more than all
of the foreign aid programs
-
Not Synced
in the world combined.
-
Not Synced
We began with the nativist questions,
-
Not Synced
about immigrants as tools,
-
Not Synced
as others, and as parasites.
-
Not Synced
Where might these new questions
about worker rights,
-
Not Synced
about responsibility,
-
Not Synced
and about equality,
-
Not Synced
take us?
-
Not Synced
These questions reject pity
-
Not Synced
and they embrace justice.
-
Not Synced
These questions reject
the nativist and nationalist division
-
Not Synced
of us versus them.
-
Not Synced
They're going to help prepare us
for problems that are coming
-
Not Synced
and problems like global warming
-
Not Synced
that are already upon us.
-
Not Synced
It's not going to be easy to turn away
from the questions that we've been asking
-
Not Synced
towards this new set of questions.
-
Not Synced
It's no small challenge
-
Not Synced
to take on and broaden the borders of us.
-
Not Synced
It will take wit, inventiveness
-
Not Synced
and courage.
-
Not Synced
The old questions have been
with us for a long time,
-
Not Synced
and they're not going
to give way on their own,
-
Not Synced
and they're not going
to give way overnight.
-
Not Synced
And even if we manage
to change the questions,
-
Not Synced
the answers are going to be complicated
and they're going to require
-
Not Synced
sacrifices and tradeoffs.
-
Not Synced
And in an unequal world, we're always
going to have to pay attention
-
Not Synced
to the question of who has the power
to join the conversation
-
Not Synced
and who doesn't.
-
Not Synced
But the borders of the immigration debate
-
Not Synced
can be moved.
-
Not Synced
It's up to all of us to move them.
-
Not Synced
Thank you.
-
Not Synced
(Applause)