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