BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Immigration and Gringo Privilege

  
 
Cherry Bomb
15:49 / 02.10.02
Just a bit of an offshoot from the "safe space" thread. I'm interested in some ideas that were raised over there. In particular the ideas about Americans (and other priviledged rich nations) having an easier time travelling, as well as the idea that those people from poor countries (or, as Mr. Disco said, people "without papers") having a difficult time finding a safe place.

And is it "dead easy" to immigate to the U.S.? I surely don't think so. It's possible yes, but in my (admittedly limited) experience teaching English to a variety of students from places like Colombia, Korea, Mozambique, Brazil, etc., I am damned lucky to be the holder of an American passport.

I know people (from such third world countries as France) who have played the "American Green Card Lottery" for years in order to gain entry to the U.S. (and lost every time, by the way). While I was I still in the States, I was friends with a lot of foreigners and while some of them were there legally, a lot of folks would resort to whatever they had to do in order to stay in the U.S. I know folks who lived fraudulently in the U.S. for a long time before being able to claim legal residence.

So, is it dead easy to immigrate to the U.S.?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
16:09 / 02.10.02
Ok, I have a bit more to say.

I'm just thinking about this whole "U.S./Great American Melting Pot" thing, etc. etc. Now, I'm an American, and my ancestry is Polish, Norwegian, Swedish, Czech, with teensy teensy smidgeons of German, French and British. I know at least that the Scandinavian and the Slavic sides of my family emigrated to the U.S. (how's this for a story? One ancient relative of mine hid in a stowaway boat on a cruise liner to come to the U.S. all the way from Poland!).

All of my American friends have similar stories. We know that America is nation of immigrants. And we also know that many ethnic groups (the Irish, Chinese, Italians, etc.) faced lots of prejudice and difficulties when they first got here. And those who emigrate now still face trouble. But people still want to go there, either because of the myth of the American dream or the truth that often, they can make a hell of a lot more money in the U.S. than they ever could back in say, Mexico.

But personally, I think there's quite a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. right now, particularly post 911.

Does anyone remember that just before 911 happened, Bush was set to meet with Vincente Fox (Mexico's president) about loosening some U.S. immigration laws? There were strings set to it, of course. Basically we were looking at a situation where the U.S. would have allowed Mexicans to come work in the U.S. legally but without the rights U.S. citizens enjoy (minimum wage, etc.). This would have ensured that the U.S. would still have a cheap labor force to do all the jobs that Americans don't want to do. But of course, after 911 this was all forgotten about.

I think, basically we just want cheap labor, still. It's OK to come to the U.S. if you're willing to take some shit job and be taken advantage of, but even if you are working 12 hours a day six days a week and pumping money into the U.S. economy we still don't want you to live here PERMANENTLY.

I think that there is quite an anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., in spite of our "Great American Melting Pot" heritage.

What do you think? And does this make any sense at all?
 
 
some guy
16:23 / 02.10.02
In particular the ideas about Americans (and other priviledged rich nations) having an easier time travelling, as well as the idea that those people from poor countries (or, as Mr. Disco said, people "without papers") having a difficult time finding a safe place.

Before this discussion can proceed any farther, we need to define "safe place." A black woman from Nairobi is "safer" visiting the US than a white man from Des Moines is visiting Kenya.

But personally, I think there's quite a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. right now, particularly post 911.

We need to look closer at the word "immigrant" here. Is there anti-Irish sentiment? Are Italian immigrants less welcome?
 
 
MJ-12
16:32 / 02.10.02
I think you also need to make distinction of what you mean when you say immigrants. Are you speaking only of those who intend to settle long term, or are you also including student visas, H1-B's etc.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
20:21 / 02.10.02
When I use the word, "immigrant," I was originally talking about foreigners who want to emigrate to and live in the U.S.

I don't think "safe space" is relevant here, actually. I'm more just thinking about how easy it is for various people to be mobile and be where they want to be, and I was especially intrigued by LLWnIMG's assertion that it's dead easy to immigrate to the U.S. in the "safe spaces" thread. If we can cover these issues in that thread without straying off the "safe spaces" topic, I'm more than happy to close this thread and move it on over.
 
 
some guy
20:43 / 02.10.02
When I use the word, "immigrant," I was originally talking about foreigners who want to emigrate to and live in the U.S.

Yes, but throwing around terms like "anti-immigrant" does little more than muddy the waters unless we unpack meaning, particularly in light of the fact that US history is built on immigration and that not all foreigners are created equal. Is the US as a society currently opposed to Afghani immigrants? Probably. Is it opposed, as a society, to Irish immigrants? No. So we do need to be a bit more clear.

I don't think "safe space" is relevant here, actually.

I actually said "safe place" and was in fact quoting you: as well as the idea that those people from poor countries ... having a difficult time finding a safe place. So, what constitutes this safe place? Especially in light of the fact that - despite its many and varied flaws - one of the key strenghts of the US is its willingness to allow mass immigration, and the fact that foreign nationals in the US are by and large "safer" than US nationals in more than half of the world?

I'm more just thinking about how easy it is for various people to be mobile and be where they want to be

Mobility has little to do with the reality of being somewhere, which is why I specifically asked in the other thread whether a poster was well-traveled. My US passport will get me almost anywhere, yes. On the other hand, if I'm using it to travel to a non-Western country, quite often I am on dangerous ground if I stray from the extremely narrow corridor of official tourist protectionism. To claim that the global acceptance of a US passport somehow equals white imperialism is silly.
 
 
HCE
08:20 / 03.10.02
I actually said "safe place" and was in fact quoting you: as well as the idea that those people from poor countries ... having a difficult time finding a safe place. So, what constitutes this safe place? Especially in light of the fact that - despite its many and varied flaws - one of the key strenghts of the US is its willingness to allow mass immigration, and the fact that foreign nationals in the US are by and large "safer" than US nationals in more than half of the world?

In fact that would seem support Cherry Bomb's view: that the US constitues the safe, desirable space. It is important to note that while the US is not currently being bombed nor experiencing an extended drought, neither is it a utopia of good nutrition, universal literacy, and pure water for more than a fraction of its real (as opposed to legal) residents.

His point seems to be that the US offers the lure of economic security for many from abusive societies elsewhere who find themselves being exploited here as well. Thus lumps can be said to remain in the melting pot.

Mobility has little to do with the reality of being somewhere, which is why I specifically asked in the other thread whether a poster was well-traveled. My US passport will get me almost anywhere, yes. On the other hand, if I'm using it to travel to a non-Western country, quite often I am on dangerous ground if I stray from the extremely narrow corridor of official tourist protectionism. To claim that the global acceptance of a US passport somehow equals white imperialism is silly.

I don't understand. Mobility has everything to do with the reality of being somewhere. This is why infrastructure is so critical. Mobility of goods, and people. Why we use embargoes? Restricted mobility as a punitive or hostile measure? Surely such constriction is an instance of empire-building, if not the most egregious example. Passport acceptance is symptomatic of imperialism, not generative.

I wonder whether the personal experiences of feeling unsafe abroad to which you allude took place in war zones?
 
 
The Natural Way
10:50 / 03.10.02
fred: best name since "adamswish".
 
 
some guy
11:04 / 03.10.02
In fact that would seem support Cherry Bomb's view: that the US constitues the safe, desirable space.

I thought Cherry Bomb's view is that the rest of the world constitutes safe, desirable space for wealthy white men. I may be drawing on comments from the safe space thread, however.

Mobility has everything to do with the reality of being somewhere. This is why infrastructure is so critical. Mobility of goods, and people. Why we use embargoes? Restricted mobility as a punitive or hostile measure? Surely such constriction is an instance of empire-building, if not the most egregious example. Passport acceptance is symptomatic of imperialism, not generative.

Look, my passport is good for Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa. I have personally been to these places. If a Westerner such as myself steps slightly outside extremely narrow corridors of sanctioned tourist protectionism, I am on dangerous ground. Illusions of US imperialism are just that - illusions. There is a political and (felt far more strongly) a commercial grasp, yes. But having a Pepsi at the Hard Rock in KL doesn't alter the fact that it's not unusual for Westerners in Malaysia to encounter trouble outside the capital. It's difficult to accept "mobility" as the key to US imperialism when the reality of actually being in these places does not reflect US hegemony.
 
 
w1rebaby
12:40 / 03.10.02
I thought this was a thread about immigration to the US, not the tribulations US citizens have to go through in foreign climes?

Speaking as someone now holding a Blanket L1 "Indentured Servant" visa after a considerable length of time and the sort of stress that makes you bite your own feet off, I can say that any ideas anyone may have about it being easy for foreigners to enter the country are false. I got it because I'm transferring internally in a large, rich multinational with standing arrangements with US immigration. I don't think in this case being male, white and English-speaking had much to do with it (although that will have had influence in getting me the job in the first place) - it's the fact that my employers have a lot of clout.

That's not even immigration, it's a convenience for industry to allow them to transfer workers about. I have to stay working for that employer, I can only stay for three years (extensible), I have to pay social security but I can't claim it, etc etc. Actual immigration is a far longer and less certain process. Even the details on the INS pages look bad, and they mask untold levels of stress and frustration over the period concerned, even if you do get it. And if no company will sponsor you and you're not marrying anyone and you want to work in the US legally... you can't, full stop.

It's hard for me to say there's any difference in this as compared to previously, but I compare my situation to my dad's who entered this country at the same age as myself, over thirty years ago. He didn't seem to have that much trouble. Of course, he was entering from a Commonwealth country and was white, educated, English-speaking... but it does seem that there's been a change in immigration policy generally in the West that applies to pretty much everyone, with culture of origin and wealth making a difference by access to legal advice and familiarity with bureaucracy rather than specific prejudice.

That's not to say there must have been a change in attitude. Before, it was a lot harder to get to a country in the first place, so immigration was to an extent self-limiting.

One of the theories I have about it, though, is that unrestricted immigration would quickly disprove a lot of the unstated moral foundation of global capitalism, that poor countries are poor because they just haven't done things properly, that under capitalism everyone can be rich if they do things right, and that we don't depend for our wealth on exploiting others and restricting their ability to stop us.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
13:23 / 03.10.02
Ok, more to say later, but for clarification of terms and to avoid getting bogged down in things unrelated to teh topic,

"anti-immigrant" means "Against foreign people who are emigrating to this country". If you believe that not all immigrants are created equal and Afghan immigrants are less welcome than the Irish, please elaborate.

Again, I don't want to get bogged down defining "safe space." The reason I think it's irrelevant is because the topic of defining safe spaces is pretty much covered in the safe space thread. What I'm wondering is is it difficult for immigrants - particularly those who as Disco said are "without papers" to find a place that's safe. As I also said, if you think this is all covered better in the original safe space thread, feel free to close this one and move it on over. I'm just interested in the topic I brought up. But unfortunately I don;'t have too much time to discuss it however. I will return, however!
 
 
some guy
13:47 / 03.10.02
I thought this was a thread about immigration to the US, not the tribulations US citizens have to go through in foreign climes?

I was responding to this point in the original post: I'm interested in some ideas that were raised over there. In particular the ideas about Americans (and other priviledged rich nations) having an easier time travelling, as well as the idea that those people from poor countries (or, as Mr. Disco said, people "without papers") having a difficult time finding a safe place.

It's hard for me to say there's any difference in this as compared to previously, but I compare my situation to my dad's who entered this country at the same age as myself, over thirty years ago. He didn't seem to have that much trouble. Of course, he was entering from a Commonwealth country and was white, educated, English-speaking... but it does seem that there's been a change in immigration policy generally in the West that applies to pretty much everyone, with culture of origin and wealth making a difference by access to legal advice and familiarity with bureaucracy rather than specific prejudice.

I think this is probably true, and has only been exacerbated by 9/11. But it's also a very contextual argument - saying "America is anti-immigrant" means nothing without a quite specific context for the statement, especially in light of the sheer number of immigrants living in the US, the numbers allowed in each year, the history of the country and so forth.

One of the theories I have about it, though, is that unrestricted immigration would quickly disprove a lot of the unstated moral foundation of global capitalism, that poor countries are poor because they just haven't done things properly, that under capitalism everyone can be rich if they do things right, and that we don't depend for our wealth on exploiting others and restricting their ability to stop us.

I think the generally underclass status of immigrants reinforces the "unstated moral foundation of global capitalism," actually. When we see Korean immigrants running a convenience store, it doesn't quite convey the fact that South Korea is a pioneer in wireless technology, for example.

If you believe that not all immigrants are created equal and Afghan immigrants are less welcome than the Irish, please elaborate.

There are ethinicities that are considered part of the American tapestry - especially in the Northeast. I don't imagine that an incoming Pakistani family and an incoming Italian family are going to receive the same welcome. It's impossible to discuss immigration without touching on racism, after all.

What I'm wondering is is it difficult for immigrants - particularly those who as Disco said are "without papers" to find a place that's safe.

Again, define "safe." Immigrants to the US are "safer" than US citizens traveling over much of the world. An immigrant from Vietnam can wander the US freely and be as "safe" as any white native.
 
 
w1rebaby
15:10 / 03.10.02
I think the generally underclass status of immigrants reinforces the "unstated moral foundation of global capitalism," actually. When we see Korean immigrants running a convenience store, it doesn't quite convey the fact that South Korea is a pioneer in wireless technology, for example.

That's a fair point; immigrants who are at the bottom of the ladder because of either prejudice or just being new are more "evidence" that they're all like that. And it's hard to rise up the ladder without losing your "foreigner" status anyway. The more "foreign" you are as an immigrant, the lower your status is likely to be and thus foreign-ness becomes associated with poverty and thus incapability.

I think the challenge I was thinking of was more that promoting the idea of free immigration makes people confront the idea "what would happen if everyone lived in the rich countries and nobody lived in the poor ones? would they all have the same standard of living as we do now?" and the obvious answer is "no". In other words, considering the issue makes you more aware that we actually live on top of others.

That's not a challenge of immigration itself, really, it's a challenge of increasing immigration.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
15:58 / 03.10.02
*sigh*

LlwismyG, you have made some pretty inflammatory statements. Such as, "It's Dead Easy to Immigrate to the U.S." That's what made me start thinking about the issues behind immigration and anti-immigrant settlement. I'd be interested in discussing those ideas further. But I'm getting increasingly frustrated because I get the feeling you just want to be right, and are too busy looking for semantical holes (real or imagined, and I am sort of wondering if you're even reading my posts or just busy taking them out of context in order to be "right"). Aaargh. I'd really like to stop defining what I wanted to discuss for you and just discuss it - this is what I get for not writing a topic abstract, I suppose.

Look, you can be right, and I can be wrong. I don't really care. But please, let's stick to the idea at hand I created this thread to explore, and that is immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment and what are the causes (again real or imagined ) behind it? Is there anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S.? If so, what causes it? Are some immigrants indeed more privledged than others? Why? What role if any does capitalism in it? What role does racism play? And yes, ugh. Obviously you can't discuss immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment without touching on racism. Which is kind of why I titled the thread "Immigration and Gringo (a racist term for us whitefolk) Priveledge." The other part of this, privilege, is what privledge if any do we have with our nice First World passports?

*sigh*

Now, then, back to the topic at hand. At pay attention at the back! Because if I get misquoted/not read thoroughly/etc. again, because I will get cranky.

I would be interested in expanding this to include the U.K..'s ongoing struggle to prevent refugees streaming into England via the Channel as well. We all know why these people want to go to the U.K. - it's the richest country in the E.U. (unless I'm wrong and it's actually Germany, but I don't think so) and it offers some great social benefits even if you're not a British National. (Hell, I have free health insurance here! Fancy that!)

I'd like to say that the American Dream is a bit of a myth. Of course we all know this to some extent, I think, but I don't believe there was ever a golden time when the poor tired huddled masses ever came into the U.S. and were truly welcomed with open arms. Take a gander through Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for a read about how some newcomers fared here. While it is certainly true that an Irish guy working for IBM who just got his transfer to the NYC office will have an easier time of it than a Rwandan refugee, you're making an error to think the Irish (and for that matter the Italians, etc.) didn't suffer abuse when they emigrated en masse to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century.

Hell, even when Ellis Island was still open and letting people in by the boatload those who "got here first" still didn't take a kind view to the newbies. Ever hear of the Alien and Sedition act? Heard the one about how, even when the U.S. knew Jews in Germany, Poland, etc. were almost certain to die at the hands of the Nazis, they returned boatloads of folks trying to escape? (We let in the "good people" of course. Like Albert Einstein).

I guess what I'm saying is we (Americans) pride ourselves on being a country that opens its doors to people from all lands, but the reality is that that's not true.

A lot more but this post all ready way too long so I'll stop a moment.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:18 / 03.10.02
I know what you mean, Cherry, but I perhaps laurence is being quite sensible in wanting to make things clearer. After all, you and he disagree and so it might be illuminating to see what exactly you disagree about. "Anti-immigration" is loose term, when all is said and done.

On the other hand, the statement that the US is easy to emigrate to, also needs examination. What does that mean? That more people get into the US each year than get into the Netherlands? Not a very even comparison. The site I linked to on the safe spaces thread has lots of info. The statisitics there hardly lend weight to the notion that it is easy getting into the US.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
16:25 / 03.10.02
Good point, Lurid. Peace, LLwlnismG! I just wanna talk about the issue is all.

Aaanyhoo, do you think you could link us up with that map, Lurid? 'Tis useful over here.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:23 / 03.10.02
Is a link to the post enough?
 
 
w1rebaby
18:26 / 03.10.02
Um, can I express surprise that this is suddenly in Conversation?
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:56 / 03.10.02
Maybe the mods that be felt that it was anecdotal and lacking in analysis?
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:20 / 03.10.02
I think we should discuss how citizenship is and is becoming digitalised. Id cards, numbers and codes is all we are.

Can we move the thread to the Lab now?
 
 
grant
19:24 / 03.10.02
It was an error on Cherry's part backed up by an error on my part. She was trying to fix the spelling of the title, and hit the wrong button.
Then I agreed.

sorry.

Back to gringo privilege.

I think it's all about money. Witness: in apartheid South Africa, Chinese, Koreans, etc. were considered "Coloured," but Taiwanese (strategic trading partners) were considered "Honorary Whites."
That's an official designation. Based on money.
 
 
w1rebaby
19:52 / 03.10.02
Okay. It's in Switchboard now. Has it managed to find its safe space here now? Will it have to seek asylum elsewhere? There's irony and there's piss-taking.

I think it's about money and influence as well. If you look at the criteria for acceptance under the non-immigrant visa categories in the US, it is explicitly stated - the top category, for instance, is reserved for world-class academics and thinkers, and also high-ranking corporate personnel. (Making it rather clear that the two don't often coincide.)

Digitalised? Well, in terms of how we exist by means of our credit rating, certainly... and that's going to be another barrier, and a significant one, for people trying to immigrate from outside of the west. Even if you can enter the country legally you have no credit rating and so cannot develop a credit rating. You're outside of the system and will have great trouble entering.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:16 / 04.10.02
About immigration into the US- Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Fat Idiot" contains the interesting fact that no-one who was ever a member of the Communist Party is allowed citizenship. It also contains the even more interesting fact that no-one who was a member of the Nazi Party BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945 is allowed citizenship. Anyone know any more about this?
 
 
bjacques
17:01 / 04.10.02
Shoot, I've got that book, but it's in storage.

That's the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, that
removed etnicity as a reason for exclusion
and replaced it with "subversive activity."
In 1952, that meant Communists; 50 years later,
that means anyone in Hamas.

Use of immigrants for cheap labor is a
global practice; one reason it dominates of
U.S. discourse is because ofthe "melting pot"
narrative."

There's some anti-immigrant feeling in the
U.S., as there is anywhere the economy is crap,
thanks partly to right-wing politicians supported
by the very businesses that profit from immigrant
labor.

A few years ago, it became even more difficult
to get a green card. An immigrant now has to
be sponsored financially for 10 years.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
02:44 / 07.10.02
Hey Cherry, yay for you. Nice thread. I have loads to say but I'd rather put up a link to Xborder, a site a friend of mine does about border issues which has some answers to the questions you 're asking:

XBorder -- particularly this article by Ghassan Hage (who is amazing) -- answering some questions about the intersection of immigration policy and racism.

Also check out No Border -- there's an interesting phrase in the opening parapgraph (about a Day of Action on October 13th) -- "useful and unwanted migrants". Seems pertinent to look at the kinds of migration/migrants various governments allow, and precisely how governments manage migrants and migration.
 
  
Add Your Reply