The Boundaries of Belonging

Online Work of Immigration-Related Social Movement Organizations

Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9783319437460
• eBook ISBN: 9783319437477
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Emigration & Immigration
• Index: Social Sciences

This book addresses an issue currently making political headlines in the United States—immigration. Immigrants have long engendered debates about the boundaries of belonging, with some singing their praises and others warning of their dangers. In particular, the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country provoke heated disagreements with issues of legality and morality at the forefront. Increasingly, such debates take place online, by organizations in the immigrant rights and the immigration control movements, who engage in symbolic work that includes blurring, crossing, maintaining, solidifying, and shifting the boundaries of belonging. Based on data collected from 29 national-level groups, this book features a cultural sociological analysis of the online materials deployed by social movement organizations debating immigration in the United States.

© The Author(s) 2016

Bernadette Nadya JaworskyThe Boundaries of BelongingCultural Sociology10.1007/978-3-319-43747-7_1

Begin Abstract

1. Debating Immigration

Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky¹

(1)

Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

End Abstract

As I complete this book, immigration to the United States is in the limelight, catapulted onto center stage by presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s remarks announcing his candidacy on June 16, 2015: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” (“Trump” 2015). These harsh words have peppered the headlines all summer, and his popularity has hardly waned as a result. In fact, the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s plan for immigration reform, which promises to “make America great again,” receives the support of a majority of US voters. When asked about building a wall on the US-Mexico border, 51 percent of likely voters feel the United States should do so (37 percent disagree and 12 percent are not sure); the number surges to 70 percent among Republicans (Rasmussen 2015b). Indeed, voters overwhelmingly find that “illegal immigration” poses a challenge to their country, with 80 percent rating it a “serious problem” (Rasmussen 2015c).

The words of Pope Francis, uttered a few months later during a visit to the United States, reflect an entirely different positioning:

On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. (“Address of the Holy Father” 2015)

The pope, who calls for welcoming those that cross the southern border of the United States, is wildly popular among US Catholics and non-Catholics alike. A Washington Post-ABC News poll finds, “Nearly 3 in 4 Catholics hold a strongly favorable view of the pope… Even among Americans with strongly unfavorable views of the Catholic Church, Francis is seen positively by 50 percent of them” (Rosenwald et al. 2015). And even though people worry about border security and “illegal immigration,” support for the pope’s compassionate stance seems strong. When asked by various pollsters about whether those in the country illegally should be granted legal status, strong majorities (about two-thirds or more) are in favor of such a plan (Jones 2015b; Meckler 2015; PEW 2015a). Moreover, immigrants are seen as a “good thing” for the country by 73 percent of US adults (Dugan 2015). Ambivalence and contradictions prevail among polls on immigrants and immigration issues.

Even if the US public seems to have mixed feelings about immigration, especially when it comes to so-called “illegal” immigrants, those who engage in immigration-related activism have a clear and strong vision about the issue. Immigrant rights activists laud the pope, believing that he has encapsulated the very ideals of the country. As Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice (AV), puts it: “He captured the essence of our nation and the core values of our society in a way that challenges our leaders to transcend the political polarization of the moment and build a better future for the quiet, hardworking and dispossessed among us” (emphasis mine). ¹ The Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) statement on the pope’s address offers a legal answer (a path to citizenship) to a moral problem (deportation and detention): “We stand with the Pope in the call for humanity and cooperation in such a way to make the conditions of immigrants more humane. This includes an end to unjust deportations and detention and the recognition of our humanity by way of comprehensive immigration reform that provides a clear path to citizenship and family unity.” ² Like Donald Trump, these activists seek “immigration reform,” but they see his recommendations as “one of the most disturbing and costly policy plans ever released by a Republican or Democrat.” ³ As with their response to the pope, they again appropriate the nation’s principles: “His plan is offensive to America’s core values of family, fairness and inclusion” (emphasis mine). ⁴ United We Dream (UWD) intertwines issues of legality with concerns about morality: “His position, the mass-deportation of people like me and my parents and millions more immigrants across the country, is morally wrong and goes against the values of this county.” ⁵ It seems that considerations about the legal status of immigrants are never far away from thoughts about right and wrong.

Activists who would limit the number of immigrants coming into the country take the pope to task. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) President, Dan Stein, declares: “While the pope’s exhortation that we ‘treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated,’ should be universally embraced, his assertion that ‘We must not be taken aback by their numbers,’ is problematic.” ⁶ Stein also offers a legal solution to a moral problem, but the locus of concern is entirely different: “Numbers do matter. They matter greatly. Immigration does not just affect immigrants. Immigration deeply affects the receiving countries and the settled populations of those countries. That is precisely why the United States and virtually every nation on earth has immigration laws and sets limits on the number of people who are accepted for admission.” ⁷ In this case, the “settled populations” of the United States, presumably citizens and legal immigrants, must be protected by the law. And apparently, such populations feel strongly about being “deeply affected” by immigration, as Bob Dane, also from FAIR, explains: “Trump’s statement reflects the outrage and powerlessness the public feels about an issue that is spiraling out of control which the other candidates are dancing around. When Americans speak freely about immigration they’re often ignored, marginalized and demonized. Trump’s statements—while not delicate or entirely factual—tapped into that raw emotion.” ⁸ The moral implication is clear: “Americans” are being treated unfairly and unjustly by being “ignored, marginalized and demonized.” Furthermore, the lack of concern for the laws that protect the nation’s borders opens the door to dangerous consequences: “Most are not drug smugglers, or rapists. But the same open borders that have allowed millions of people to enter illegally in search of jobs, incontrovertibly allow dangerous criminals to enter as well.” ⁹ In short, both sides are concerned with law and morality, even as their discourses on immigrants and immigration diverge so drastically.

Clearly, it is more complex than saying there are two respective movements that are “pro” and “anti” immigrant. Looking at the ways in which activists make meanings and share them with their audiences reveals that they actually draw upon similar conceptions of what role law and morality should play in a democratic nation state. What they are polarized about, however, is how immigrants fit into the picture, in particular unauthorized ¹⁰ immigrants. So it indeed appears that there are two antagonistic movements, even if they rarely address each other directly. The fact that the unauthorized population is represented so differently—“undocumented immigrants” versus “illegal aliens”—speaks volumes about how each movement thinks they should be treated. Solutions range from recognizing rights and granting a path toward formal belonging (citizenship) to mandating removal from US soil, whether through deportation or attrition that results in voluntary departure. In this book, I explore the ways in which organizations within these two factions, which I will refer to as the immigrant rights (IR) and the immigration control (IC) movements, represent immigration issues in “American” society. ¹¹ More precisely, I am interested in how these organizations engage in symbolic boundary work, which includes blurring, crossing, maintaining, solidifying, and shifting. I look at the ways in which moral and legal criteria interact in these processes along three dimensions—family, citizenship, and values. Although scholars have looked at morality and legality as aspects of symbolic boundary work, there is little work, if any, that looks at how they interact in the process.

Increasingly, one of the strategies employed by both IR and IC activists is the use of Internet websites and social media to spread their messages and solicit calls for action. Both seek the help of potential participants, from signing online petitions or contacting legislators to engaging in offline activities. The former may be seeking to assist a single immigrant about to be deported and the latter may be campaigning to “defund” the entire project of Obama’s 2014 “amnesty.” In either case, according to some of the activists responsible for such pleas, the virtual reach may extend into the millions for their audiences. Even as physical participation remains crucial, as Earl and Kimport (2011) assert, with the advent of virtual technologies, more collective action takes place without co-presence than ever before. In this book, I develop a cultural sociological analysis of the online ma...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Debating Immigration
• 2. The Boundaries of Belonging
• 3. Family Matters
• 4. The Price of Citizenship
• 5. Evaluating Values
• 6. Symbolic Boundaries in Action
• Backmatter