I've been reading some of the reactions and thoughts from desi and other Asian lists about the rallies and protests tomorrow. The papers are also covering this mobilization after the beautiful people came out in full force in L.A. I'm excited, but I'm also thinking that we have a lot of questions and uncertainty about where desis should or do stand on immigration. In the sea of brown faces, why, people wonder, are there so few desis? We all know that there are a lot of undocumented folks in our communities too.
First, remember that this legislation is about more than just undocumented immigrants and legalization. It's quite broad, and could have profound effects on more sectors of our community than even the horrible roll-backs that came under Clinton's watch in 1996.
Second, and I see this mistake made over and over by the mainstream press and the anti-free speech (unless it's pro-Administration) people: the vast, overwhelming majority of people who march and protest are not undocumented. It is not safe for someone who is undocumented to attend a rally or a protest, because if anything happens with the police because of some bonehead, disgruntled white dude who cares more about blowing up a Starbucks than marching peacefully, someone who is undocumented is at serious risk of deportation if they are caught in the aftermath.
So responsible organizers don't push undocumented members to go out to protests. That's what we, who have status privilege, should be doing. Many desis are lucky to have approved immigration status in this country, through the professional visas that were granted in the 60s and 70s, or derivatives for families thereafter. However, though some of us recognize that privilege, and don't take it as an entitlement (and remember that what the government giveth, the government surely can taketh back), there are many who actually believe that their status is through merit distinct from anything possessed by folks who aren't so lucky. Well, I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise, but we're just lucky. Nothing much more, especially if its our parents who actually did the migrating.
But when we finally realize that, and we remember that while growing up in suburban America, our faces represented perpetual foreignness to mainstream America, no matter where we were born or what papers we had stowed away in deposit boxes and safes. And so what do I think?
I think that now we have a chance to take that perceived foreignness that was stamped upon us just for looking different, for having different names, for not fitting into Smallsville and disappearing into the majority and do something with it. We can use that privilege and that perceived foreignness, gifted to us by the hard work of our parents and our forebears and we can stand in - not for their voices or their unique stories - not as saviors or martyrs or saints. But as brothers and sisters of those who are not as lucky as we.
We can take this to the streets and we can make a stand with all the other folks who understand, in one way or another, in our myriad paths and speaking in our many tongues. We can stand in to represent with our bodies and the chorus of our voices those who can't be in the streets and at the podium, speaking about their lives, and making the poignant case for recognizing human rights through a humane immigration policy in this country.
***
I'll be in the streets tomorrow. I hope many others will be too. Because this is our fight as much as it is anyone else's, and because though this country goes through waves of hateful xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, it rights itself when it wakes up. And I have faith that we can make it wake up before it makes that mistake again this time.
[previous post]
Apr 10, 2006
A10 Mobilization and Taking a Stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think the the opposite (that granting amnesty to illegals is xenophobic) for these reasons.
s.e.: Okay - I overstated. I think you're right - there are folks out who aren't documented, but I don't believe that it's to the degree that the conservative talking heads keep making it out to be. But of course, it's a mixed crowd out there.
kingsley: I don't know your story, but I don't agree with your perspective. The restrictive immigration policies of the United States are inherently xenophobic, and have always been. But I would say that doctors and engineers from South Asia and China have gotten quite a few express visas to come here to work, and that doesn't seem particularly fair to other communities. The policies play one group off of another - but one of the problems is that it is incredibly complicated, and that some of the policies turn documented immigrants to undocumented, just because of the backlog in processing. That's a problem too. Not to mention that with the curtailing of basic services and options for undocumented residents, the options have become either some path towards legalization, or a much more dangerous situation with more people living in the shadows of the prosperity that lures people here to begin with.
In New York, I'd say that at least every other person I talked to was undocumented. At least. It was probably higher.
Not going to argue about numbers, and it's good that folks felt safe enough to come out in that way. But my point is still important.
Also - I agree, this is a movement. Especially when mainstream media doesn't anything negative to spin about the events because they were peaceful mass actions without much incident. All I could see on CNN that was negative were a number of people burning a Mexican flag and singing God Bless America. Go figure.
Actually - I don't disagree with you that folks should be out there to represent themselves and their own stories. I don't think it's fair to say that I want to be a proxy, or that I'm saying that's the best way to go. I mean - it's not very different from having white folks speak on behalf of communities of color, or middle-class folks speaking for the poor. Immigration status is more hidden than race or gender (generally)... so of course it's different.
However, that doesn't mean that there's no place for allies - or that we have to always play this same, tired inside/outside dynamic. I am saying that it's not reasonable to push people, just as it's not reasonable to push them outof the way. And I think it's important for people with the particular privileges of status, class, or education to do something more than just worry about themselves. Everyone should do that - regardless of status.
But I still think that there is a complete wash of these complexities in mainstream America - and it's an interesting contrast with the conversations happening within some of these/other circles.
Actually - the language I used was not perfect, and I'm glad you brought this up. You were kind - but it can be construed as a good example of the very thing that I was hoping to write against: status privilege.
I do think that folks in the know about ramifications should be straight with people who are upset and want to act and stand up for themselves... and then be supportive when folks make the decision - either to get involved, or not.
It's very exciting to hear about folks standing up for themselves, and when it's a job on the line, it's one thing... but I don't need to tell you that in this environment, it is easy to live in fear of worse things happening.
But your earlier point about not living/acting in fear is spot on. And this:
I read about one man who had been fired for missing work to attend a demo, was reinstated with the help of allies, and then pledged to go back out on May 1st nonetheless. That, to me, is amazing.
Is awesome.
Yeah - it's amazing that folks are coming out of the shadows, but I'm wary of the requisite backlash (I made the mistake of listening to conservative radio [when did they move to FM anyway?!] and getting scaring myself).
Still - it's only through personal stories and human faces that we can change the tone of this debate overrun with statistics and a deep-set American fear of a violent unknown in the wake of Sept. 11 (which I think may be a stronger factor than it has been in most other times when immigration policy has been strongly contested).
What I mean, and this is more for myself than adding anything for you (^_^), is that in a casual reading of American history, it seems like protectionists over the decades have been worried about the "ideal" and "culture" of America being dilluted (or polluted, depending on who you read/talk to). The "yellow hordes," the threat of the Vatican's influence over the government, and even the influx of Eastern Europeans at the turn of the last century seemed to be more about safeguarding the "character" of America.
But while that strand of reaction, the misbegotten progeny of xenophobia, is still very much alive, it seems like there's another strand that focuses (or plays upon) the threat of physical destruction and "our way of life" in a much more literal way.
While the expected parallels to anti-immigrant laws and movements in American history have been made in the past 4 years, I wonder if we should look at a different thread of American history to try to figure out how to address this particular development. For example - perhaps the 50s, when Sputnik and the arms race changed the American psyche and precipitated the red scare, the air raid drills in schools, and eventually, McCarthyism.
I think that the talking points may have to change - to better address the undercurrent of fear from the opponents of positive immigration reform with a focus of immigrants' rights. Maybe getting the stories of individuals and families just trying to make it will address at least this fear that every person who comes into the country without documentation may be trying to destroy something. But who knows. I definitely can't vow for the openmindedness of the Lou Dobb/O'Reilly crowd.
Thanks for the edimification. :)
Post a Comment