Liberally Biased : Racism and the (illegal) immigration debate

TONY RED

Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007

Email this story | Printer-friendly version

The increasingly heated immigration debate just won’t go away. In his column “ Thank the stars” that ran in this paper a few weeks ago, John Dilmore pointed out that people often make no distinction between ‘ illegal immigrant’ and ‘ immigrant’ when debating the issue. Some folks on one side fail to do so, Dilmore contends, to intentionally confuse the issue. He wrote, “ What they’re attempting to do is brand anyone opposed to illegal immigration as anti-immigrant, which is not-toosubtle code for ‘ racist. ’”

This is a common, and valid, complaint among many who are on the anti-illegal-immigrant side of the debate. I certainly agree with Dilmore that we need to be as clear and honest as we possibly can when debating important issues like this, but that goes for both sides.

In an effort to practice what I preach, let me be as clear as I possibly can regarding my position: I believe that many Americans really do use the words “ illegal immigrant” to actually mean they are opposed to immigrants generally, and that what drives this is to a large extent racist xenophobia. Why do I believe this ? Well, first, because racism has always driven American backlash against immigration.

We are, of course, a nation of immigrants. Unless you are fullblooded American Indian, at least some of your ancestors stepped off a boat here, strangers in a strange land. And although immigration to the United States has continued unbroken since our inception, most immigrants have arrived in three big waves: The first was between 1830 and 1860, the second was 1880-1920, and the third and current wave from 1970 until now. Like now, each preceding wave of immigration was met with a strong backlash.

The first wave saw massive numbers of Irish and German immigrants coming to America. ‘ Native ’ Americans, who were mostly Anglo-Saxon Protestants, did not like these strangers crashing their exclusive club. The immigrants took jobs away from ‘ native ’ workers, it was argued, just like now. The immigrants posed a threat to ‘ American’ language, religion and values, it was argued, just like now. They were more violent, less-civilized and would not assimilate, it was argued, just like now.

Anti-immigrant riots, abuse, and discrimination were rampant. A potent political party, the Know-Nothing Party, sprung up pushing for immigration restriction. The party failed. The world did not end. The immigrants did assimilate, and they made the United States strong.

The second great immigration wave from 1880-1920, which brought most of my family here, caused an even more virulent backlash. Most of these immigrants were from southern and eastern Europe, but many were also from Asia. The same pattern was repeated. The new immigrants were reviled, seen as “ alien” threats to “ American” culture; they were thought to be unable to assimilate.

This was the era of “ 100 percent Americanism. ” It was also the age of eugenics-fueled racism and the astonishing reincarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, which increasingly attacked immigrants. It was this era which saw the first limitations on immigration.

First was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was solely the product of racism. Next came the exclusion of “ undesirables, ” such as the mentally ill, and finally in the 1920 s, a racist-motivated quota system designed specifically to limit the number of non-northern European immigrants.

Prior to these xenophobic restrictions, there was no distinction between “ legal” and “ illegal. ” If you had a place to go and got here, you were in. My grandparents and great-grandparents, thankfully, were admitted into the club — but only reluctantly. As with the first wave, things turned out fine. In fact, it was upon the backs of these immigrants that the United States rose to become a world power. Both waves of immigrants were more feared than welcomed. The same arguments against their arrival are the ones we hear now. But is it really racism that lies behind the anti-illegal-immigrant debate today ? I believe so. I hear racist arguments every day in our fine community. Most people I meet are not concerned exclusively with illegal immigrants; they are concerned mostly with Hispanic and Asian immigrants — period. Is this true outside of Benton County ? Yes. Pat Buchanan, product of oncedespised Irish immigrants, had a column that ran in this paper on May 5 titled, “ The Dark Side of Diversity, ” in which he blamed the Virginia Tech shooting on immigration. Not “ illegal” immigration, mind you, but immigration in general. Buchanan attacks this “ invasion” of people who cannot or will not “ assimilate. ” This group of “ strangers, ” he argues, threatens all of our most cherished values. Does any of this sound familiar ? Buchanan is not alone. Bigoted racists like him are all over the “ illegal” immigrant issue. That’s why one can barely talk about “ illegals” without hearing some paranoid rant about making English our official language. Racism is everywhere in the immigrant debate. It always has been.

Tony Red writes a column for The Benton County Daily Record. He can be reached at tred 22 @ cox. net, or write to him in care of this newspaper.