LATINO IMMIGRATION MYTH1What is your myth My myth is.docx

LATINO IMMIGRATION MYTH 1
What is your myth?
My myth is that most Mexican Americans are
undocumented immigrants. The above myth is usually claimed
by many individuals living in the United States because they
generalize all Mexican Americans and consider them as
undocumented immigrants. Not all Mexican immigrants
illegal, policy has created, people have, association and illegal.
The myth is kind of narrative, maybe make to more abroad.
What is your argument about your myth? (Should be two to
three concise sentences.)
The above myth is not true because, in the United States,
several policies were established to control the influx of people
in different regions. The establishment of immigration policies
occupied a critical role in registering individuals and
classifying them as American citizens with equal rights to
people born in America. Therefore, Mexican Americans are
documented people who live in the United States, and they
should receive similar treatment to other native-born citizens.
Argument needs to be more relative to the myth, and don’t say
all Mexican are documented immigrants, the only thing we can
say is there are larger portion of Mexican has become
documented immigrants, because there are still many Mexicans
are undocumented, so we can only say the percentage of
undocumented immigrants has decreased.
What pieces of evidence are you using to prove your argument?
(Be specific with the language, use the act in 1986, you can
find in week 11 illegality timeline, see the second page of that
ppt, and you will find there is big decline of illegal immigrants
in 1965 and 1986 also see the video in the ppt of the week 11
illegality timeline, here is the link (

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-
research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/ ) this
might be helpful.
find some statistics and relatively law to prove why those
decline can present lower percentage of undocumented Mexican
immigrants. Mexican citizenship, visa, how many Mexican
have green card, naturalization rate of Mexican, we can cite
source from the Pew Research Center (this outside source can
be cited )
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2017/06/29/mexican-
lawful-immigrants-among-least-likely-to-become-u-s-citizens/
Constructing sentence. Make the outline more organized
instead of put them all the same bullet point under one evidence
you can do it like this :
1. Idea one:
a. Why idea 1 is correct…
i. Example to prove it
b. Why idea 1 is correct…
i. Another example to prove it
Make every evidence to prove your argument in a reasonable
way, use class sources, good luck!
· One of the aspects which indicates that not all Mexican
Americans are undocumented immigrants is the fact that several
laws were established in 1990. More historical data,
· According to Hiltner (2017), in 1990, the Immigration Act and
the immigration preference system was installed. At that time,
immigrations to that region increased from 500,000 to 700,000
annually (Chavez, 2008, p.9). At that time, the government
enacted a policy that would allow certain immigrants to live in
the country. As such, the "Temporary protected Status" policy
was established. The above system allowed the Attorney
General to exempt the deportation of immigrants who flee their
countries as a result of conflicts and natural disasters. The most
critical issue about the policy is that the 1990 laws were created
to enhance employment-based immigration. Enactment of the

regulations allowed many Mexican Americans to be employed
in different occupations and received appropriate wages.
· Citizen and noncitizen are terms used to imagine and define
community membership. In the United States, undocumented
immigrants are treated differently as compared to Native
Americans. Therefore, the issue of being undocumented subjects
them to harsh conditions. Lack of documentation is thus used as
a criterion for discrimination. Further, many immigrants,
specifically those who are undocumented live in an unsafe
environment and a climate full of fear. Since the undocumented
immigrants are not able treat with the same legal right, that may
kind of lower down the percentage.
· This argument is really confused and did not support the
argument, again try to find more example in the class material,
and I have posted a four power points that should be helpful.
Since 2006-2007, the U.S Congress took up roles which
included enacting immigration reforms. Enactment of
immigration reforms combined strategies of immigration so that
undocumented individuals are not affected by laws implemented
in the country (Genova, 2014, p.3). With President Bush in the
regime at that time, undocumented immigrants were considered
through the establishment of policies that allowed them to live
freely in that country and seek similar opportunities as other
races. President Obama transformed immigration policies by
documenting a large section of undocumented immigrants. (
U.S has a problem illegal ,video native Americans, not “N” `
· In the immigration policy discourse, legislative debates and
anti-immigrant politics in the United States, have evolved, and
Mexican Americans have been acknowledged in different
societies. Mexican migration to the United States occupies a
central role since it contributes to many transformations in the
migration policies. Most of the Mexican immigrants in the U.S
moved due to many reasons (Chavez, 2008, p.7). A section of
them migrated due to labor reasons. When working in the U.S,
they receive temporary visas, which allows them to live there
until their terms of stay expire, or they renew their permits and

continue working and living there. The inclusion of such
policies in the United States helped Mexican Americans become
legal citizens of that country.
· The term undocumented immigrants refer to the section of
people who have entered, lived, or worked in the U.S without
proper authorization and have been criticized by diverse people.
· In the U.S, new landmarks have been formed with the passage
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) led to
changes in immigration policies. The Immigration Acts of 1990
was a milestone in the U.S as Mexican-Americans were given
different types of documents to help them live in America. As
such, the number of undocumented immigrants reduced.
· The law also strengthened border control and expanded the
grounds of deportation of undocumented Mexican-Americans.
· According to Spakovsky (2019), the Immigration Reform of
1996 was enacted and barred undocumented immigrants from
accessing social security benefits and other student financial
aids.
· In recent years, more immigrants are living in the U.S than
ever before. Immigrants in the overall population threaten the
existence of natives. In the U.S, the number of immigrants
spiked, and as a result of that, reformations in the immigration
policies helped in managing the influx of people in that country.
· The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States claims that all
citizens born or naturalized in the United States are subject to
the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Therefore, several Latinos in the U.S migrate to live in America
and then intermarry with Americans and then give birth to
documented American citizens.
· The issue of undocumented immigrants is considered a crucial
point, and as such, it must be addressed.
· Undocumented immigrants are c`onsidered immigrants who
cannot access different services in the U.S.

· Understanding the difference between documented and
undocumented immigrants occupies a central role in the
identification of immigrants' rights.
Main contents of two books:
Chavez, L. (2013). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants,
citizens, and the nation. Stanford University Press. The Latino
threat states that most people are either undocumented or are in
the US illegally. The book explains Latino threats that have
been rampant during elections times. Politician uses the threats
to gain votes and divide the American populace. The politician
wants people to believe that the number of immigrants is high
and that is why the natives are experiencing unemployment.
De Genova, N. (2014). Immigration Reform and the production
of Migrant Illegality. Constructing Immigrant “Illegality”.
Critiques, Experiences and Responses, 37-62. The study
explains illegality as it is less understood by most people. The
paper explains illegality as it refers to different groups in
America. It is important to understand immigration laws to
understand who is in America illegally or not. Thus, a person
should understand immigration reforms to understand the myth
that comes with illegality of Latinos.
References
Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino Threat: Constructing
Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Genova, N. (2014). Immigration "Reform" and the Production of
Migrant "Illegality." Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/CArol/Downloads/DeGenova-
Immreformandimmillegality.pdf
Hiltner, S. (2017, March 10). Illegal, Undocumented,
Unauthorized: The Terms of Immigration Reporting. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/insider/illegal-
undocumented-unauthorized-the-terms-of-immigration-
reporting.html

Spakovsky, H. (2019). "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-
Up Term That Ignores the Law. Retrieved from
(AKA The laws about who
belongs and who decides?)
• What are the laws that govern the entry and exit of non-
citizens?
• Who gets to come to the US and who gets to stay?
• Who gets kicked out?
• Who gets access to citizenship?
**NOT policies/enforcement measures/practices. The LAW.**
Google search for: “What part of legal immigration don’t you
understand?” - images
REVIEW THE CHART – ANSWER WITH A PARTNER

If you were going to try to immigrate to the US, which option
would you hope to use?
Which option would you hope you wouldn’t have to use?
(Which are the best and worst options and why?)
Other observations or questions?
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFhthhrgZ4
https://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-flowchart-
roadmap-to-green-card.pdf
• Complex system of categories based on personal history of a
person (and sometimes her/his relatives)
• “Officially, to be meritorious, individuals first have to be
minimally eligible for a particular status, occupy the procedural
position, meet narrowly defined legal criteria, have proof of
their claims, and so forth.” (Coutin, Legalizing Moves p. 61)
• Difference between having the legal history necessary to
attain a certain
status (eligibility) doing the paperwork, demonstrating proof,
following the
correct process, and getting approved (getting a new status)

• Ie. U.S citizens who don’t know they are U.S. citizens
• Legal categories of eligibility
• Priorities guiding these categories
• Temporariness/permanence/access to citizenship
• Reunification of families
• Admitting immigrants (and nonimmigrants) with skills that are
valuable to the US economy
• Protecting refugees
Seems simple but…
• (Which families? What is a family?)
• (Which skills are valuable? Who determines value?)
• (Which refugees?)
Immigrant visas –
permanent residence,
permission to work, capacity
to naturalize (potentially)

“legal immigrants”
“green card holders”
Nonimmigrant visas -
temporary residence.
Some employment.
Tourism.
Students.
Some subject to yearly limits/quotas, others not
(impacts wait time)
• No permanent status
• Must have a permanent residence abroad, demonstrate ties to
home
country – prove they will not stay in U.S. (INTENT)
• For a specific (temporary) purpose - diplomats, business
visitors,
tourism and medical treatment, students, treaties, international
organization representatives, seasonal/agricultural workers,
exchange visitors, fashion models, “workers of extraordinary
ability”,
religious workers, etc.
• Often tied to employers for status – cannot change employers
• Many categories subject to labor certification process
• SOMETIMES can apply to adjust status to be eligible for

green card
• Some can bring families, some cannot (some family members
can
work too, some cannot)
Click here for info from USCIS on Nonimmigrant Visas
• Some “immigrant,” some “non-immigrant”
• Refugees and asylees
• Battered spouses, children, parents
• Victims of human trafficking and other crimes
• Humanitarian parole (individual cases)
• Deferred Action (DACA and DAPA) – undocumented people
brought as children, some parents… temporary relief from
removal (2012)
….. “economic refugees”????
• diversity lottery– random selection countries with low rates of
immigration
• DACA and other temporary statuses (TPS in humanitarian
category?)

• First, family member files form I-130 to establish the
relationship that makes you eligible. https://www.uscis.gov/i-
130
• ^^This gives you your “priority date” (your “place in the
line”)
• A bunch of other forms, including “affidavit of support” ($$$)
• Eligible family members must wait until there is a visa number
available before they can apply to become a lawful
permanent resident.
• When your priority date comes up, you can submit I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
https://www.uscis.gov/i-485 - this gets you your visa interview
and eventually a green card (if all goes well)
1. Only LPR or citizen can petition
2. Only certain family members eligible
3. Time-consuming, costly process
• 1 form (I-130) per would-be immigrant
• How much do you think it costs?
• $535 per form – 4 people = $2600
• Other paperwork fees, travel
• Affidavit of support 125% poverty line

4. Annual statutory quotas
5. Visa backlogs
• “Priority date” - State Department Visa Bulletin:
• https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-november-2019.html
• Explainer https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/visa-availability-
priority-
dates
• Final Action Date vs. Date for Filing, explained:
• https://lhscimmigration.com/immigration-news/news/date-for-
filing-vs-final-
action-date-the-department-of-states-new-two-tiered-visa-
bulletin/
• Obama EO changes - “There is now a “Date for Filing,” which
determines
whether or not you can submit the final application, and also a
separate
“Final Action Date,” which indicates whether or not it is
expected that a visa
number will be available. In many cases, the Date for Filing
will be well
before the Final Action Date, meaning that, for the first time,
people will be

eligible to submit an application for permanent residence well
before it is
even possible for the government to approve that application.”
• You can file the application for Adjustment of Status when the
Date for Filing
is after your priority date, but the application can only be
approved when
the Final Action Date is after your priority date.
(Why was this change significant? - BASICALLY, people have
a
temporary permission to stay in the country and work while
waiting for
their green card)
If you are undocumented can you
gain legal status?
More here:
https://www.americanimmigrationcou
ncil.org/research/why-
don%E2%80%99t-they-just-get-line
• re-entry bars on immigrants who accrue “unlawful presence”
• “unlawful presence” not defined in immigration law. Defined
in practice:
• generally, an immigrant who enters the United States without
inspection,
or who overstays a period of authorized admission, will be
deemed to
have accrued unlawful presence.

• Individuals who accrue more than 180 days, but less than one
year, of
unlawful presence are barred from being re-admitted or re-
entering the
United States for three years;
• those who accrue more than one year of unlawful presence are
barred
for ten years
• Also a permanent ban - Attempting to enter the U.S. without
permission
after a past deportation or one year's total stay in the U.S.
results in
permanent inadmissibility.
• Do you think these re-entry bars work effectively to deter
unauthorized entry/residence?
• Grounds for removal… INA 237, p. 288
• Inadmissibility at time of entry
• Criminal grounds (drugs, aggravated felonies, domestic
violence, etc.)
• Violation of visa/ immigration status (employment or
overstaying)
• Human smuggling and trafficking
• Marriage fraud
• National security grounds

• http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/grounds-
deportability-vs-grounds-inadmissibility.html
Constructing Illegality Timeline
• Review De Genova, Kibria, and Gomberg-
Muñoz (Ch 2) to create a timeline for your
assigned timeframe, answering:
• IDENTIFY - What were the key pieces of policy/law
that contributed to the development of “illegal”
migration flows and popular notions about
“illegality”?
• DESCRIBE - What did each policy do?
• EXPLAIN - How did it contribute to the production of
“illegal” migration, and the association of
“illegality” with Mexican/Latin American migration?
Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012). Unintended
consequences of US immigration policy: explaining the
post-1965 surge from Latin America. Population and
development review, 38(1), 1–29.

Pre- 1920’s
• Mexicans originally considered as “conquered native
population” (post- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) –
sense of responsibility to the population
• Racially defined as white, immigration allowed
• BUT in practice excluded from immigration and citizenship
through other mechanisms, including literacy tests, ban
on contract labor, “public charge” provision – “qualitative”
but not quantitative exclusions (De Genova)
• Not included in pops with numerical quotas in National
Origins Quotas Act 1924 (no numerical limits)
20’s
• After illegal entry was made a felony in 1929, illegal
immigration
became increasingly associated with Mexicans…
• “The number of Mexicans deported formally under warrant
rose
from 846 in 1920 to 8,438 in 1930. In addition, some 13,000
Mexicans a year were expelled as "voluntary departures" in the
late 1920s and early 1930s. By the late 1920s the problem of
illegal immigration became increasingly associated with
Mexicans, as they came to constitute half of those deported
formally under warrant and over 80 percent of all voluntary
departures”
• (European communities based in NY were better organized,
had
more resources, better access to lawyers – more often avoided

deportation… LESS likely to become associated with illegality)
• New York deportation cases – 20% with legal representation
• Texas deportation cases – 2% with legal representation
20’s
“”Illegal” became constitutive of “Mexican,” referring, not
to citizens of Mexico, but to a wholly negative racial
category, which comprised both Mexican immigrants and
Mexican Americans in the United States. The construction
of Mexicans as an illegal and illegitimate foreign presence
in their former homeland played a central role in the
reorganization of the agricultural labor market in the
1920’s..” (p. 91)
30’s
Mexicans in 1930 redefined as a separate race – “persons born
in
Mexico or with parents born in Mexico and who “are not
definitely
white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese.” Distinguishing a
separate race of illegitimate foreigners, official policy hardened
the

idea of Mexicans as a disposable labor force and facilitated the
deportation and repatriation of over 400,000 Mexicans (half of
them
children with United States citizenship) during the Great
Depression.” (p. 91)
• Border Patrol in Department of Labor***
• Deportation as union-busting strategy
• Mass deportations of immigrants AND US citizens of Mexican
descent
• Exclusion from Great Depression relief
40’s-60’s
Bracero program: 5 million
• Perhaps 4x as many unauthorized migrants as
formally contracted Braceros
• After end of program, continued migration
without authorization
• Mostly CYCLICAL/SEASONAL (coming and going)
Mass deportation
• Operation Wetback 1954
1965…

• No more national origins
• Replaced with global quota system – 20,000 per country
• Imposed quotas on Western Hemisphere migration for the first
time
ever (120,000 total, no country specifics)
• Opened up immigration opportunities for people from Asia
and Africa,
but severely restricted migration from Mexico, the Caribbean,
and
Latin America.
• 1976 amendments - imposed 20,000 per year quotas on
Western
Hemisphere countries, and closed a loophole that had allowed
undocumented Mexicans with U.S.-born children to legalize
their
status.
• early 1960’s migration patterns entailed 35,000 annual entries
and
200,000 bracero entries per year
• Now entire hemisphere capped to 20,000. What happens next?
1965++
• “The number of deportations of undocumented Mexicans
increased by
40 percent in 1968, to 151,000.
• The figure continued to rise: in 1976, when the 20,000 per
country

quota was imposed, the INS expelled 781,000 Mexicans from
the United
States. Meanwhile, the total number of apprehensions for all
others in
the world, combined, remained below 100,000 per year.
• As Nicholas DeGenova has noted, the INS’s “enforcement
proclivities
and prerogatives, and the statistics they produce, have made an
extraordinary contribution to the commonplace fallacy
insinuating that
Mexicans account for virtually all ‘illegal aliens,’ have served
to stage
the U.S.-Mexico border as the theatre of an enforcement
‘crisis,’ and
have rendered ‘Mexican’ as the distinctive national/racialized
name for
migrant ‘illegality’.” (p. 261)
1976++
• “illegal” migration takes center stage
“illegal” migration became the explicit problem
toward which most of the major subsequent
changes in immigration policy have been at least
partly directed (De Genova 2014)
Changes to family immigration system (privileged
US citizens – combined with low naturalization
rates of Mexicans, large impact)
--backlogs in application processing

1986
• 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act– 2 kinds of
amnesty, employer sanctions, border enforcement^^^^
• Legalization programs major turning point
• SAW – Special Agricultural Workers (certain number of days
worked in agriculture during a defined time frame)
• General legalization – time in residence, good moral character
----------Mexican population bifurcated along legal lines
• Some with legal status and access to family legalization and
U.S.
citizenship (cross-border mobility)
• The rest, and all future migrants, stuck in illegality (or in
some cases
“liminal” legality, ie. DACA) and immobility
90’s-2000
• 1990 Immigration Act
• Raised total immigration cap from 500,000 to 700,000
• Created TPS status
• Doubled employment-based visas (Kibria et al ch 2)
• IIRIRA 1996 most punitive to date
• Border police empowered to execute deportations without
court proceedings –

discretionary authority
• Redefined aggravated felonies in immigration cases (reduced
prison term needed
to qualify as agg felonies) – these changes were for noncitizens
ONLY
• Greater restrictions on relief from removal – we will talk more
about this
• PRWORA “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act” 1994
“welfare reform” – restrictions to eligibility for means-tested
public
benefits… etc. etc.
Laws as “incentive for illegality” – encouraging folks to evade
scrutiny of the
law
1986-2000
• After 1986 IRCA (and other subsequent policies)
• Deflected migrants away from California crossing spots
(where border was reinforced)
• Crossing in more rural, dangerous areas (environment,
gangs, etc.)
• Cost of crossing ^^^^

2000’s
• New kind of security state
• Department of Homeland Security created, Immigration
and Nationality Service absorbed into DHS
• PATRIOT Act 2001 – surveillance powers, detention
powers
• Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act,
2002
• REAL ID Act 2005
“national security grounds” of inadmissibility, removal (no
appeal, no need to explain why)
2000’s
• Sensenbrenner bill HR 4437, 2005
• Would have made unlawful presence a felony
• Mandatory detention, felon status – irreversible illegality
• (protest response 2006)
• Secure Fence Act 2006

• State-level legislation and policy emerging
2000-2014
• SB 1070 Arizona “papers please” –police can ask for
immigration documents if “reasonable suspicion” of
illegality (???)
• Calls for “Comprehensive immigration reform”
• Almost always entails a “bargain” – legalization in
exchange for increased enforcement/border security
(sound familiar? 1986 IRCA)
• Guestworker programs (sound familiar?)
• “immigration pragmatists” (Kibria et al) – distinguish
between “good” and “bad” immigrants
• DREAM Act (proposed 2010)
• DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 2012
So, does the system “work”?
• What does De Genova say?
How do we know the numbers?
• https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-research-center-
counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/ - feel
free to cite this article/video in your papers
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-
research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/
Life,
Undocumented
Gomberg-Munoz
e biggest ways in which being
undocumented impacts the lives of the Lions? What did
you find most surprising/revealing in the book?
networks? (Ch 4)
“hard work”
amongst/about immigrant populations? (Ch 5)

dignity? How does it intersect with racialization at work?
(Ch 6)
Undocumented youth
Optional sources:
-
https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-
timeline/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjBkrqJ9BEc
https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/
Handout – discussion q’s
of illegality? How does “illegal” status impact the
lives of immigrants and U.S. citizens?

innumerable places”
What is “illegality”?
WORD SOUP…
• illegal alien
• illegal immigrant
• “Illegals”
• undocumented immigrant
• non-citizen
• unauthorized immigrant
• irregular immigrant
• entry without inspection/ "EWI”
• visa over-stayer
• migrant
• Guestworker
• DACAmented
• asylum seeker
• political asylee
• Refugee
• Dreamer
• lawful permanent resident
• legal immigrant
• LPR

• green card holder
• nonimmigrant visa
Today:
• Clarify and refine the language we use to talk about
immigration
• Develop a “lexicon” for talking about immigration
and il/legality
Time to get philosophical…
• What are some things – not related to immigration – that
we often describe as “illegal”?
• What makes these things illegal?
• Why are these things illegal?
• What happens when something illegal happens?
• What rights do people who do illegal things have?
• Is an illegal action always immoral? Is an immoral action
always illegal? (What is the relationship between illegality
and morality?)
Important to note…
• Specificity of legal parameters/regulations
• Typically illegal ACTIONS not things
• Intent**

• Discretion**
• Mitigating circumstances**
• Degrees of seriousness**
• Proportionality of punishment**
“Illegal” immigration…
• How do we use the word “illegal” in the context of
immigration? What does it mean?
• What is “illegal immigration”?
• What is an “illegal immigrant”?
• What is an “illegal”?
• How does this usage compare to how we use the
term “illegal” in other contexts?
How do others use these terms?
Ap statement on "illegal immigrant"
https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more
Perspective from an immigration lawyer-
https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal
2018 doj statement on "illegal aliens "
https://qz.com/1336110/its-illegal-aliens-not-undocumented-
immigrants-says-the-us-department-of-
justice/
Nyt on language around ill imm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/insider/illegal-
undocumented-unauthorized-the-terms-of-
immigration-reporting.html

The Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank) editorial
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/undocument
ed-immigrant-made-term-ignores-
the-law
UNHCR –
https://www.unhcr.org/cy/wp-
content/uploads/sites/41/2018/09/TerminologyLeaflet_EN_PIC
UM.pdf
What terms do scholars use?
• Excerpts handout (Ngai, Gomberg-Munoz, Thomas and
Galemba)
WHY---
What rationale does the author/organization use for the
terminology they have chosen to use?
Compare for: AP, HuffPost, NYT, DOJ, and the three
scholarly sources.
Specifically, what do scholars say about this terminology?
Why do some choose to use the word “illegal” despite the
controversy?
WHY/WHY NOT
• The “inaccurate”/ “imprecise” argument
• The “offensive”/ “harmful language” argument

(“dehumanizing”)
• Indicating the socially constructed notion of illegality
in order to acknowledge it’s impact
• WHY inaccurate? WHY imprecise?
OK, so where does that leave us?
• Do you think we should use these terms? If so, how
should we use them, and why?
• “illegal immigration”?
• “illegal immigrant”?
• “illegal” (as a noun)?
• What definitions for the term should we use?
Alternative/similar terms…
• “undocumented immigrant/migrant”
• “unauthorized immigrant/migrant”
• “irregular immigrant/migrant”
• “EWI” or “entry without inspection”
• visa-overstayer
• “Dreamer”
• “noncitizen”
• “DACAmented”
NOTE – each with slightly different meaning and/or connotation
IOM Glossary:
https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml25_1.pdf

The bottom line in our class…
• You are not required to use/not use one term or another.
BUT
• I want you to be AWARE of the stakes of using some terms
over
others
• I will request that you be CONSIDERATE of your peers and
how
the words you choose might affect them (remember our ground
rules)
• I expect you to choose ACCURATE terms that reflect the facts
of
what you are discussing/writing about
• In your papers, you must DEFINE your terms to ensure clarity
and accuracy – cite the IOM glossary for definitions
Constructing Illegality Timeline
• Review De Genova, Kibria, and Gomberg-Muñoz
(Ch 2) to create a timeline for your assigned
timeframe, answering:
• IDENTIFY - What were the key pieces of policy/law that
contributed to the development of “illegal” migration
flows and popular notions about “illegality”?
• DESCRIBE - What did each policy do?

• EXPLAIN - How did it contribute to the production of
“illegal” migration, and the association of “illegality” with
Mexican/Latin American migration?
Outline 3 Feedback Key
Please review ALL of these points, not just the ones that I wrote
on your rubrics.
A. Length/level of detail
B. LINKAGE from argument to main points.
· Make sure you address the “how” question – how does this
evidence support your myth? You might opt to create a separate
section for each evidence point called “How” to prompt you to
include this part. You can literally say something like “This
piece of evidence supports the myth because…”
C. Formatting/organizational Problems (need to be resolved
before/during writing phase)–
1. Incorrect format: The worksheet I gave you is not an outline.
You can use the worksheet to help you generate ideas, which
should then be reformatted into a bullet-pointed word document
outline.
2. Needs more hierarchical organization (groups ideas indicated
by indentation)
· For example the points below this bullet point, but indented,
are related ideas under THIS sentence’s main idea
· Example 1
· Example 2
· Example 3
D. Evidence
1. Specificity - You should note SPECIFIC evidence in your
myth. Include detailed information, ie. “The first use of the
term was in YYYY by XYZ person/group, for ABC purposes.”
If you aren’t sure if you are doing this, ask yourself “How do
we know this?” The answer to that question is your evidence.
2. Amount – You will need more evidence, perhaps from a

wider variety of sources, in order to adequately prove your
argument.
E. Topic-related
1. Too narrow
2. Too broad
3. Other
G. Fact check
· Something you’ve said isn’t quite accurate – perhaps due to
your use of confusing, incorrect, or imprecise language.
H. Revise myth statement phrasing – specifically, if your myth
is “All/most Latinos/Mexicans are undocumented/ “illegal”
immigrants… Think about how to make this more interesting
(you can easily answer this in a single sentence by saying x# of
Latinos/Mexicans are citizens and x# are legal permanent
residents” – expand the phrasing to go beyond a simple yes/no
or numbers question/answer. Most of you who wrote a myth
statement like this are actually answering a much bigger/more
important/more interesting question with the main points and
evidence you use. Make sure your evidence matches your
argument/myth and topic sentences.
I. Make sure you make a CLEAR distinction between WHICH
immigrants/immigration you are talking about, re: “illegal”
immigration (which kind? Border-crossers vs. visa over-
stayers), “legal” immigration, etc. Utilize the vocabulary lists
from the IOM and Mr. Gump – provide clear definitions and be
precise about which terms you are using, when, and why.
J. Organization – make sure you organize your argument by
IDEA, not by SOURCE. Make sure that you have strong TOPIC
SENTENCES that express the idea, which you then support with
information/evidence from the source.
K. Cite and explain specific policies/historical events that
shaped the dynamics you are discussing.
L. You may want to add in a discussion of how hard (sometimes
impossible) it is for people to immigrate through “legal”
avenues, or to “legalize” their status once here “illegally” ie. 3
yr, 10 yr, and permanent bans on legal immigration

M. Make sure that your topic sentences/main points actually
match up with your evidence. Put another way, make sure that
your evidence proves the topic sentence.
Whereas statistics and historical facts are often obviously
useful, it’s not always immediately obvious how to use
ethnographic sources in a paper like this. Below is an example
of how to use data/evidence from ethnographic writing (ie.
Gomberg-Muñoz in Labor and Legality and Becoming Legal
chapters). This text is taken from something I wrote recently, -
a review of a book written by anthropologist Theresa Mares.
“Mares shows how the program contributes to establishing
farmworkers’ food sovereignty – not only by increasing access
to healthy and culturally appropriate foods, but by providing a
source of empowerment and pride, and by “bridging the barriers
of social isolation” (p. 90-91) characteristic of Vermont’s dairy
industry. Key to Mares’s understanding of food sovereignty is
the issue of agency. She writes, “Huertas allows the possibility
for farmworkers to cultivate food with deep cultural meaning,
and to exercise agency and choice over what foods they
consume” (p. 96). Mares uses ethnographic stories to
demonstrate the impact of the Huertas program on participants:
Comment by Cook, Jennifer: Here I used this phrase to
link my explanation of her argument to her use of ethnographic
data
“Whether it is fresh salsa or a bouquet of recently picked
flowers, Alma’s produce brings her a firm sense of pride in her
ability to create something from the ground where she resides.
As this pride developed, Alma became increasingly active in
local farmworker activism efforts and even taught cooking
classes at a food cooperative in Burlington focusing on dishes
from her home community. Despite the fact that these events
required her to leave the home – which is a risky venture given
where she lived – Alma’s relationships to the local community

deepened. And yet, even with this personal growth, her
autonomy and sense of place were rooted to land that she does
not own, a connection that remained tenuous and seemingly
impermanent.” (p. 104) Comment by Cook, Jennifer: Here, I
quoted a bit of her ethnographic description to show how her
data demonstrates her argument. (Of course, as we have
discussed, you will not use such long quotes in your papers –
you will paraphrase and choose short quotes that illustrate key
points and use them sparingly.)
But the power of the border extends even to these spaces of
relative agency, as farmworkers must establish their gardens on
farm-owned land, in locations where they cannot be seen from
the road in order to avoid state surveillance. Overall, Mares
argues that the work farmworkers and Huertas volunteers do in
their gardens cultivates a kind of mediated agency – not a food
sovereignty revolution, but nevertheless food-based resilience
with far-reaching impacts on farmworkers’ physical and
psychosocial well-being.”
You might say something like “An ethnography by Gomberg-
Munoz demonstrates the central role that social networks play
in facilitating undocumented immigrants’ access to crucial
resources and employment information. [insert quote or
additional paraphrasing]”
OR
“Undocumented immigrants are often incentivized by their
marginal position in the labor force to work even harder than
native-born workers, as Gomberg-Munoz shows in her
ethnography, Labor and Legality [insert quote or additional
paraphrasing]”
Outline

3
Feedback Key
Please review
ALL of the
se points, not just the ones that I wrote on your rubrics.
A.
Length/level of detail
B.
LINKAGE from argument to main points.
·
Make sure you address the “how” question
–
how does this evidence support your
myth? You might opt to create a separate section for each
evidence point called “How”
to
prompt you to include this part. You can literally say something
like “This piece of
evidence supports the myth because…”
C.
Formatting
/
organizational
Problems

(need to be resolved before/duri
ng writing phase)
–
1.
Incorrect format: T
he worksheet I gave you is not an outline. You can use the
worksheet
to help you generate id
eas, which should then be reformatted into a bullet
-
pointed
word document outline.
2.
Needs more hierarchical organization (groups ideas indicated by
indentation)
§
For example the points below this bullet point, but indented, are
related ideas
under THIS sente
nce’s main idea
·
Example 1
·
Example 2

·
Example 3
D.
E
vidence
1.
Specificity
-
You should note SPECIFIC evidence in your myth
. I
nclude detailed
information, ie. “The f
irst use of the term was in YYYY by XYZ person/group, for
ABC
purposes.” If you aren’t sure if you are doing this, ask yourself
“How do we know this?”
The answer to that question is your evidence.
2.
Amount
–
You will need more evidence, perhaps from a wider
variety of sources, in
order to adequately prove your argument.
E.
Topic

-
related
1.
Too narrow
2.
Too broad
3.
Other
G.
Fact check
·
Something you’ve said isn’t quite accurate
–
perhaps due to your use of confusing,
incorrect, or imprecise language.
H.
Revise myth statement phrasing
–
specifical
ly,

if you
r myth is
“
All
/most Latinos/Mexicans are
undocumented/
“
illegal
”
immigrants
…
T
h
ink
about how to make this more interesting
(
you
can
easily answer this in
a single sentence by saying x# of L
atinos/Mexicans
are citizens and x#
are legal permanent resi
dents
”
–
expand
the phrasing to go beyond a sim
ple yes/no

or numbers
question
/answer.
Most of you who wrote a myth s
tatement like this are actually answering a
much bigger/more import
ant/more interesting qu
estion with
th
e main points and evidence you
use
. Make
sure your evidence
matches
your argumen
t/m
yth and topic sentences.
I.
Make sure you make a CLEAR
distin
ction between
WHICH immigrants/
immig
ration
you are
talking
about, re:
“
illegal

”
immigration
(which kind?
B
orde
r
-
crossers v
s. visa over
-
stayers),
“
legal
”
immigration,
etc. Utilize the vocabulary lists f
rom the
IOM and Mr. Gump
–
provide
clear
definitions
and be precise about which terms you are using, when, and why.
Outline 3 Feedback Key
Please review ALL of these points, not just the ones that I wrote
on your rubrics.
A. Length/level of detail
B. LINKAGE from argument to main points.
– how does this
evidence support your

myth? You might opt to create a separate section for each
evidence point called “How”
to prompt you to include this part. You can literally say
something like “This piece of
evidence supports the myth because…”
C. Formatting/organizational Problems (need to be resolved
before/during writing phase)–
1. Incorrect format: The worksheet I gave you is not an outline.
You can use the worksheet
to help you generate ideas, which should then be reformatted
into a bullet-pointed
word document outline.
2. Needs more hierarchical organization (groups ideas indicated
by indentation)
are related ideas
under THIS sentence’s main idea
D. Evidence
1. Specificity - You should note SPECIFIC evidence in your
myth. Include detailed
information, ie. “The first use of the term was in YYYY by
XYZ person/group, for ABC
purposes.” If you aren’t sure if you are doing this, ask yourself
“How do we know this?”
The answer to that question is your evidence.
2. Amount – You will need more evidence, perhaps from a
wider variety of sources, in
order to adequately prove your argument.
E. Topic-related
1. Too narrow
2. Too broad
3. Other
G. Fact check

– perhaps due to
your use of confusing,
incorrect, or imprecise language.
H. Revise myth statement phrasing – specifically, if your myth
is “All/most Latinos/Mexicans are
undocumented/ “illegal” immigrants… Think about how to make
this more interesting (you
can easily answer this in a single sentence by saying x# of
Latinos/Mexicans are citizens and x#
are legal permanent residents” – expand the phrasing to go
beyond a simple yes/no or numbers
question/answer. Most of you who wrote a myth statement like
this are actually answering a
much bigger/more important/more interesting question with the
main points and evidence you
use. Make sure your evidence matches your argument/myth and
topic sentences.
I. Make sure you make a CLEAR distinction between WHICH
immigrants/immigration you are
talking about, re: “illegal” immigration (which kind? Border-
crossers vs. visa over-stayers),
“legal” immigration, etc. Utilize the vocabulary lists from the
IOM and Mr. Gump – provide clear
definitions and be precise about which terms you are using,
when, and why.
Myth Outlining Worksheet
- What is your myth?
Another common myth about Latino is
- What is your argument about your myth? (Should be two to
This myth is wrong because…

- What pieces of evidence are you using to prove your
argument?
Evicdence 1 and How does this evidence support your thesis?
Evidence 2 and How does this evidence support your thesis?
Evidence 3 and How does this evidence support your thesis?
LATINO MYTHS
1 Xi Wang
LATINO MYTHS
6

Latino Myth
Xi Wang
Myth Outlining Worksheet
What is your myth?
Another common myth about Latino is that Latino immigrants
are seen as coming to the US to take the US economic system.
Most immigrants are considered lazy and live off government
benefits.
- What is your argument about your myth? (Should be two to
This myth is wrong because Latino promotes the growth of the
economy through payment of taxes and working. Additionally,
Latino immigrants encourage productivity and increase
investment. Latino immigrants are no eligible for programs.
Evidence
1. Latino Immigrants pay taxes
· Although it is claimed that Latino Immigrants hurt the
economy of America, they contribute to the growth of the
economy.
· In addition to buying and using local products, Latino also

helps create jobs by starting their own businesses.
· Just like any other consumer, they pay taxes; this includes
property taxes even in incidences of renting (Lima, 2010, p.6).
· More than half of undocumented immigrants in America have
federal and state income, Medicare taxes, and Social security,
which are automatically deducted from their paychecks.
· Each year, a total of $90 to $140 billion are collected by the
US government as taxes from the immigrants. A study shows
that each year, the United States received a total of $11.64
billion as taxes from undocumented immigrants alone.
· Immigrants contribute $1.9 billion and $591.1 million federal
and state taxes in Della respectively (New Americans in Dallas,
p.19).
· Technically, immigrants do not cause unemployment to native
citizens. If anything, 25% of the American engineering and
technology entities launched in the last decades, they were
founded by immigrants.
· For instance, Google Company, which plays a critical role in
the economy of America, was co-founded by a Russian
immigrant. These companies play a significant role in creating
jobs and generating revenue for the country.
· New Americans in Dallas (p.9) asserts that 20,405 immigrants
who own private businesses in Dallas generates a total of $
495.9 million as revenue.
2. Immigrants increase productivity and stimulate investment
· Unlike the belief that immigrant workers drive down the
wages of American workers, they play a role in increasing the
wages of native-born workers, thus raising the economy of the
country.
· The level of education between the immigrants and native
differ. However, their jobs are interdependent, thus enhancing
the productivity of the native workers who are considered more
qualified than immigrants.
· According to Suarez-Orozco, 2012, p 5), an increase in
productivity leads to high revenue and, subsequently, high
wages.

· Immigrant workers stimulate new investments in the economy,
thus increasing the demand for labor (Lima, 2010, p. 11).
· A rise in labor demand exerts upward pressure on wages, even
for the least skilled workers. Competition for work between new
immigrants and native employees have a positive impact on the
salaries of the later.
· Immigrants are considered cheap labor and uneducated, thus
majority performing casual and low-income jobs.
3. There are strict eligibility restrictions
· There is a myth that immigrants depend on federal public
benefits. However, this is inaccurate as undocumented
immigrants are often not eligible for the benefits program.
· Immigrants work for everything they have.
· In the case of legal immigrants, they are also required to meet
stringent requirements for them to attain the benefits (Perea,
1997, p. 24).
· Undocumented immigrants in the United States are not eligible
for public programs and support such as Supplemental Security
Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and food stamps.
· The only exception, in this case, is that the immigrants are
victims of human trafficking.
· Legal immigrants need to have stayed in the country for at
least five years for them to be eligible for the benefits (Suarez-
Orozco, 2012, p.16). Social security is often deducted from the
immigrant workers, but they are not allowed to access the
benefits.
· The study shows that immigrants receive 27% fewer benefits
as compared to natives of the same age and income (New
Americans in Dallas, p.19) Again, more native poor families use
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP more
than immigrants.
· Welcoming Dallas Strategic Plan argues that 18% of children
with native parents use Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF). This is higher than 12% of immigrants who
use the same services (New Americans in Dallas).

· A study has also shown that an average immigrant pays higher
prices for services and products than ordinary citizens.
· Immigrants are said to pay more taxes than the services they
receive. The services include healthcare, education, and law
enforcement resources that they use while in America.
References
Lima, A. (2010). Transnationalism: A new mode of immigrant
integration. The Mauricio Gaston Institute, University of
Massachusetts, Boston.
New Americans in Dallas. Welcoming Dallas Strategic Plan:
Plan for Civic, Economic, Linguistic and Social Integration &
Inclusion 2018-2021. Accessed from
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/wcia/DCH%20Document
s/COD-WCIA-Booklet.pdf
Perea, J. F. (Ed.). (1997). Immigrants out: the new nativism and
the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States. NYU Press.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2012). Everything you ever wanted to
know about assimilation but were afraid to ask. In The new
immigration (pp. 81-98). Routledge.

~
'1
The Latino Threat
CONSTRUCTING IMMIGRANTS, CITIZENS,
AND THE NATION
Leo R. Chavez
Stanford University Press
Stanford, California
INTRODUCTION
IN APRIL 2005, volunteers of the Minuteman Project began
arriving in Tomb-
stone, Arizona. Mostly men, they came in their trucks, with
binoculars and
even guns, ready to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border and to hunt
"illegal aliens"
attempting to cross the border. Their goal was to focus attention
on the federal
government's inability, or lack of desire, to control the flow of

unauthorized
border crossers. For about two weeks the Minutemen patrolled
the border in
an effort to deter primarily Mexican illegal immigration. With
them came the
media, en masse, to record the event and convey it to the world.
The media
spectacle in the Arizona desert made the Minuteman Project a
household
name. The Minutemen used the media attention to define more
sharply the
distinction between "citizens" and "aliens;' to influence public
discourse 'on im-
migration, and to push the U.S. House of Representatives to
pass draconian
immigration reform proposals, which it did in December of
2005 (HR 4437).
A year later, in the spring of 2006, immigrants and their
supporters took
to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the proposed
immigration
legislation (HR 4437). In Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York,
Chicago, Atlanta,
and many cities across the nation, hundreds of thousands,

perhaps a million
t'·-
or more, men, women, and children marched, waved flags,
carried signs, sang
songs, and made speeches (Figure I.l). But news photographs
and television
videos could not depict the magnitude of what had occurred. l
Why did these events capture the nation's attention? Clearly,
they were
public performances that had meaning for those who
participated in them
and the millions who witnessed them through the media. This
book grew
1
2 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1. "Convergence at City Hall," by Gina Ferrazi, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2006,
Copyright 2006, Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission.
out of my attempt to unpack the meanings of these events.
Rather than view-
ing the Minuteman Project and the immigrant marches in
isolation, I began

to see them as connected, as part of a larger set of concerns
over immigra-
tion, particularly from Mexico and other parts of Latin America;
the meaning
of citizenship; and the power of media spectacles in
contemporary life, The
Latino Threat Narrative provides the raw material that weaves
these concerns
together.
The Latino Threat Narrative posits that Latinos are not like
previous im-
migrant groups, who ultimately became part of the nation.
According to the
assumptions and taken-for-granted "truths" inherent in this
narrative, Latinos
are unwilling or incapable of integrating, of becoming part of
the national
community. Rather, they are part of an invading force from
south of the border
that is bent on reconquering land that was formerly theirs (the
U.S. Southwest)
and destroying the American way of life. Although Mexicans
are often the focus
of the Latino Threat Narrative, public discourse, as I elaborate
in Chapter 1,

often includes immigration from Latin America in general, as
well as U.S.-born
Americans of Latin American descent. Thus, the broader and
more inclusive
Latino is used throughout this book while recognizing that
Latinos actually
INTRODUCTION 3
vary greatly in terms of their historical backgrounds and success
in integrating
into u.s. social and economic life.
The contemporary Latino Threat Narrative has its antecedents in
U.S.
history: the German language threat, the Catholic threat, the
Chinese and
Japanese immigration threats, and the southern and eastern
European threat.
In their day, each discourse of threat targeted particular
immigrant groups
and their children. Each was pervasive and defined "truths"
about the threats
posed by immigrants that, in hindsight, were unjustified or
never materialized
in the long run of history. And each of these discourses
generated actions,

such as alarmist newspaper stories (the media of the day), anti-
immigrant
riots, restrictive immigration laws, forced internments, and
acrimonious pub-
lic debates over government policies. In this sense, the Latino
Threat Narrative
is part of a grand tradition of alarmist discourse about
immigrants and their
perceived negative impacts on society.2
However, the Latino Threat Narrative recognizes that Latinos
are different
from past immigrants and other ethnic groups in America today.
Latinos have
been in what is now the United States since the late sixteenth
and early seven-
teenth centuries, actually predating the English colonies. Since
the Mexican-
American War, immigration from Mexico and other Latin
countries has waxed
and waned, building in the early twentieth century, diminishing
in the 1930s,
and building again the post-1965 years. These migrations
paralleled those of
other immigrant groups. But Mexicans in particular have been
represented as

the quintessential "illegal aliens:' which distinguishes them
from other immi-
grant groups. Their social identity has been plagued by the mark
of illegality, . .
which in much public discourse means that they are criminals
and thus illegiti-
mate members of society undeserving of social benefits,
including citizenship.
Latinos are an alleged threat because of this history and social
identity, which
supposedly make their integration difficult and imbue them,
particularly Mexi-
cans, with a desire to remain socially apart as they prepare for a
reconquest of
the U.S. Southwest.
The Latino Threat Narrative is pervasive even when not
explicitly men-
tioned. It is the cultural dark matter filling space with taken-
for-granted
"truths" in debates over immigration on radio and TV talk
shows, in news-
paper editorials, and on Internet blogs. Unquestioned motives
and'behavior
attributed to Latino immigrants and their children permeate
discussions over

amnesty for undocumented immigrants, employer sanctions,
driver's licenses,
prenatal care, education for the children of immigrants,
citizenship for "anchor
4 INTRODUCTION
babies" CU.S.-born children with undocumented immigrant
parents), and even
organ transplants for immigrants. Although some aspect of the
Latino Threat
Narrative can be found in almost any discussion of immigration
in contempo-
rary public discourse, what I attempt here is a more systematic
elaboration of
this narrative. I will also attempt to contest the basic tenets of
this narrative, an
aspiration for a cultural critic admittedly not unlike Don
Quixote's attacking
windmills.3
In addition, I want to connect the Latino Threat Narrative to
what I see as
the contemporary crisis in the meaning of citizenship. The
Minuteman Proj-

ect's activities in Arizona in 2005 were about more than
drawing attention to
the perils of an uncontrolled border and unauthorized
immigration. The Min-
utemen were also decrying what they perceived as the dilution
of the rights
and privileges of u.s. citizenship because of massive
immigration. The Latino
threat is profoundly implicated in the second theme of this
book, the contested
terrain of citizenship in a world where national borders are
increasinglyperme-
able. What citizenship means in this changing landscape is not
clear. But what is
certain is that a legalistic definition of citizenship is not
enough. Other mean-
ings of citizenship-economic, social, cultural, and even
emotional-are being
presented in debates, marches, and public discourse focused on
immigrants,
their children, and the nation.
"Citizen" and "noncitizen" are concepts used to imagine and
define com-
munity membership. According to Benedict Anderson, members
of modern

nations cannot possibly know all their fellow members, and yet
"in the minds
of each lives the image of their communion .... It is imagined as
a community,
because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that
may prevail
in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal
comradeship."4
Anderson eloquently argued the importance of print media in
the construc-
tion of "imagined communities" and subjectivities that laid the
foundation for
nationalism and modernity.s In a similar vein, Jtirgen Habermas
argued that
the public sphere relies on the circulation of print
commodities.6 I extend this
thinking to the image-producing industries in order to explore
how the media·
help construct the imagined community through representations
of both in-
clusion and exclusion.7
Both the Latino Threat Narrative and struggles over the
meaning of citi-
zenship pervade media-infused spectacles where immigration or

immigrants .,
are the topic. Broadly speaking, events or public performances
that receive
an inordinate volume of media attention and public opinion
become media
INTRODUCTION 5
spectacles.8 It is difficult to escape media coverage and the
incessant "talk"
about immigration.9 Border surveillance, reproduction, fertility
levels, fears of
immigrant invasions and reconquests, amnesty programs,
economic impacts,
organ transplants, and the alleged inability to assimilate Latino
immigrants and
their offspring are all fodder for media attention.
Immigration-related media spectacles force us to reconsider
what we mean
by spectacle. Spectacle comes to us from Middle English and is
an Anglo-French
term with roots in the Latin spectaculum, derived from spectare,
to watch, and
specere, to look. In other words, a spectacle is something
watched or looked at.
It is the object of the viewer's gaze. The Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary

includes. this sense of the word in its definition but adds more
connotations: a
spectacle is "something exhibited to view as unusual, notable,
or entertaining;
especially an eye-catching or dramatic public display" or "an
object of curi-
osity or contempCIO These definitions of spectacle may
capture, to a certain
extent, what occurred in the immigration marches and other
immigration-
related events considered here. However, these events push us
to think about
the meaning of spectacles in society and how they help
construct subjective
understandings of "citizens" and "noncitizens."
When immigration-related events or issues receive extensive
media focus
and become media shows, there is more going on than merely
relating the
news. As Guy Debord observed, in modern technological
societies, life has be-
come "an immense accumulation of spectacles" and "all that
once was directly
lived has become mere representation."Il The images we

constantly consume
not only inform us of life around us but also help construct our
understand-
ing of events, people, and places in our world. 12 In short,
media spectacles are
productive acts that construct knowledge about subjects in our
world. This is
particularly the case for how we internalize who we are as a
people. How we,
as a nation of diverse people, derive our understanding of who
to include in
our imagined community of fellow citizens is a product of many
things, not
the least of which is what we glean from the media.13 Debates
over iJ.nmigra-
tion, citizenship, and national belonging are informed by the
events we witness
through the media's representation of immigrant spectacles,
whether they are
promoting concern for the plight of immigrants or anti-
immigration events.
How newcomers imagine themselves and are imagined by the
larger society
in relation to the nation is mediated through the representations

of immigrants'
lives in media coverage. Media spectacles transform
immigrants' lives into vir-
tuallives, which are typically devoid of the nuances and
subtleties of real lived
6 INTRODUCTION
lives (see Chapter 1) .14 It is in this sense that the media
spectacle transforms a
"worldview"-that is, a taken-for-granted understanding of the
world-into
an objective force, one that is taken as "truth:'IS In their
coverage of immigra-
tion events, the media give voice to commentators, pundits,
informed sources,
and man-on-the-street observers who often invoke one or more
of the myriad
truths in the Latino Threat Narrative to support arguments and
justify actions.
In this way, media spectacles objectify Latinos. Through
objectification (the
process of turning a person into a thing) people are
dehumanized, and once

that is accomplished, it is easier to lack empathy for those
objects and to pass
policies and laws to govern their behavior, limit their social
integration, and ob-
struct their economic mobility. Portraying Latinos as objects or
things makes it
easier to see immigrant marchers as a chaotic mass rather than
as people strug-
gling to be recognized as contributing members of us. society
(Chapter 7),
or Latinas represented in advertisements as beer bottles,
literally things, rather
than human beings (Chapter 3).
Through its coverage of events, the media produce knowledge
about, and
help construct, those considered legitimate members of society
as well as those
viewed as less legitimate, marginalized, and stigmatized
Others.16 Thus media
spectacles-such as those that occurred around the organ
transplants for non-
citizens, Minuteman Project activities, and immigrant marches
examined in
the chapters that follow-help define what it means to be a
"citizen," a task
that can be undertaken only by also defining its contrasting
concepts: "alien;'

"illegal alien;' "foreigner;' and "immigrant:' Where do Latinos
stand in relation
to these concepts? AreLatino immigrants worthy of the rights
and benefits of
citizenship if they are supposedly unwilling to integrate into
US. society? Are
Latinos who were born in the United States suspect as citizens
because of the
disloyalty to the nation implied by the Latino Threat Narrative?
The very act
of asking such a question casts US.-born Latinos as "alien-
citizens;' perpetual
foreigners despite their birthright. 17
Before proceeding, we need to clarify the context within which
the Latino
Threat Narrative gains tremendous currency and which has
provoked a crisis
over the meaning of citizenship. Adding to this necessary
contextualization is
a brief overview of recent legislation to control immigration.
Debates over im-
migration reform provide ample opportunities for the Latino
Threat Narrative
to become invoked. In addition, immigration reform legislation
is an exercise .~.

in inclusion and exclusion when it comes to defining who is
legitimately able to
join the community of citizens.
INTRODUCTION 7
IMMIGRATION AND THE NATION
The number of immigrants to the United States has been
growing steadily
since 1960 (Figure 1.2). The proportion of foreign-born in the
US. in 2005 was
12.4 percent, which is approaching the historic high of 14.7
percent foreign-
born in 1910, during the peak years of immigration during the
early twenti-
eth century. IS Estimates of undocumented immigrants currently
living in the
country range from 10 to 12 million, with most coming from
Mexico (57 per-
cent) and other Latin American countries (23 percent).19 These
trends have led
to public concerns over immigration and legislative proposals to
reform the
nation's immigration laws.20

TheUS. Congress seems to be on a ten-year cycle for taking up
major immi-
gration reform legislation. After passage of the monumental
1965 immigration
law, President Jimmy Carter, in the 1970s, floated the
possibility of an amnesty
for undocumented immigrants and sanctions for employers who
hired undoc-
umented workers, neither of which gained much political
ground at the time.21
Almost a decade later, Congress passed, and President Ronald
Reagan signed
into law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA). The major
provisions were sanctions for employers who hired
undocumented immi-
grants and an amnesty program for over a million undocumented
immigrants.
10'1 -----------------------------------------------------,
8 f-I ---------~
6 f-I -----------1
"' §
§
::8 41

2~
o 1=1·,11·,·11> II'" II nil II., "II II II' II" II ·11 II II Ii' 11.11
1820s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 1900s lOs 20s 30s 40s 50s
60s 70s 80s 90s 2000
Figure 1.2. Immigration to the United States by decade, 1820-
2000.
SOURCE: 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics
(Department of Homeland Security, 2006).
8 INTRODUCTION
Although touted as legislation to end undocumented
immigration, IRCA was
relatively ineffective.
The Immigration Act of 1990 made some adjustments to
immigration law,
such as increasing from 500,000 to 700,000 the number of legal
immigrants
allowed into the United States each year. It also created a
lottery program for
visas to help lure immigrants from countries that had not been
part of recent
immigration flows, especially countries in Europe. But major
immigration re-
form came six years later.

In 1996 the U.S. Congress passed the Illegal Immigration
Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law toughened the
requirements for un-
documented immigrants to adjust their status to that of a legal
immigrant
and streamlined the judicial process by turning deportation
decisions over
to an immigration court, thus reducing the levels of judicial
review open
to immigrants. It also streamlined the deportation of criminals
and wid-
ened the range of deportable offenses. Among the changes to
the nation's
immigration law included in this act was a provision making
immigrants'
sponsors responsible for public benefits used by immigrants.
This provision,
according to Sarita Mohanty et al., "created confusion about
eligibility and
appeared to lead even eligible immigrants to believe that they
should avoid
public programs!'22

It should be noted that Congress also passed welfare reform in
1996 that
also targeted immigrants. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 ended the federal government's
sixty-one-year com-
mitment to provide cash assistance to every eligible poor family
with children.23
This law was expected to save the government $54 billion over
the following six
years, with nearly half of those savings, or $24 billion, to come
from restrict-
ing legal immigrants' use of food stamps, Supplemental Security
Income, and
aid for low-income elderly, the blind, and the disabled. Legal
immigrants were
barred from using Medicaid for five years after their entry.24
Undocumented
immigrants, who already were denied virtually all federal
assistance, continued
to be barred from assistance except for short-term disaster relief
and emer-
gency medical care. Benefits, however, were soon restored to
some at-risk pop-

ulations, especially the elderly.25
On December 15,2005, the House of Representatives passed HR
4437, the
Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration
Control Act.26 The ~
bill represented yet another expression of the "get tough"
attitude toward un-
documented immigration.27 Among its many provisions were
more border
INTRODUCTION 9
fences and surveillance technology, increased detention
provisions, employer
verification of employees' work eligibility, and increases in the
penalties for
knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants. Moreover, it
would have made
living in the country as an undocumented immigrant a felony,
thus removing
any hope of becoming a legal immigrant. The bill also
broadened the nation's
immigrant-smuggling law so that people who assisted or
shielded illegal im-
migrants living in the country would be subject to prosecution.
Offenders, who

, might include priests, nurses, social workers, or doctors, could
face up to five
years in prison, and authorities would be allowed to seize some
of their assets.
The House's bill was clearly an exercise of exclusion, whereas
the immigrant
marches i,t generated were public displays of a desire for
inclusion.
The U.S. Senate, in May 2006, passed its own version of
immigration reform
that included a guest worker program for immigrants and a
legalization pro-
gram, a "path to citizenship:' for some undocumented
immigrants. Importantly,
many of the draconian measures in the House bill mayor may
not become part
of a final version of immigration reform promulgated under the
George W.
Bush administration, but the willingness of the House of
Representatives to
pass such measures sent a clear message to undocumented
immigrants about
their stigmatized status in the United States.28
Through the media, politicians desiring to restrict immigration
have been

able to represent undocumented immigrants as undeserving
criminals and pos-
sible terrorists. Sometimes it seems that the spectacle
surrounding immigration
reform is more important than enacting new laws. For example,
rather than
arriving at a compromise bill on immigration, the House of
Represen'tatives
sponsored more than twenty public meetings throughout the
nation to discriss
immigration reform, in what one newspaper editorial called the
"endless sum-
mer" of 2006.29 After that round of immigration reform failed
to result in a new
law, Congress, with President Bush's support, again took up
immigration in
May 2007, where it met a similar fate. 3D
Immigration reform laws and the politics surrounding reform
proposals
frame the public discourse over immigration. If the decibel
levels in the debate
are sometimes high, it is because the stakes are too. Who we let
into the nation
as immigrants and allow to become citizens defines who we are

as a people.
Conversely, looking at who we ban from entry, or for whom we
create 6bstacles
to integration into society and to membership in the community
of citizens,
also reveals how we imagine ourselves as a nation-that is, as a
group of people
with intertwined destinies despite our differences.
:10 INTRODUCTION
CONCEPTUALIZING CITIZENS AND NONCITIZENS
The Latino Threat Narrative, immigration patterns, and the
contemporary cri-
sis over the meaning of citizenship are a triple helix of mutual
influences.31
However, what is meant by citizen-who is eligible for
citizenship, and who
qualifies for the rights and benefits of citizenship-has always
been a matter
of contention, at least in U.S. historyY Consider the types of
questions sur-
rounding citizenship that were debated early in this nation's
history: All men

may be created equal, but are they equally eligible for
citizenship?33 Should
only white males with property have the privileges of
citizenship? What about
women, slaves (three-fifths of a person for enumeration
purposes), and Na-
tive Americans? Not all immigrants were deemed eligible for
citizenship. Asians
were ineligible during much of the twentieth century.34
Historically, the poor,
unmarried single women, whose morality was thus questionable,
and the sick
and infirm were deniable as immigrants and thus also ineligible
for citizen-
ship.35 The legacies of these issues continue to be found in
contemporary im-
migration policies.
The intertwined logics of race and national hierarchies based on
theories of
social evolution framed struggles over definitions of citizenship
and immigrant
desirability during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. 36 Although
race continues in importance, the crisis over citizenship in to
day's world has

moved to a different register, one complicated by globalization-
a term that re-
fers to how the world and its people are increasingly becoming
integrated into
one giant capitalist system. The spread of world capitalism also
carries with it a
spread of Western-often American-culture. Anyone who travels
notices how
common American fast-food restaurants have become in the
world, a process
sometimes referred to as the McDonaldization of the society.37
But globaliza-
tion is more than the movement of capital and the search for
cheap labor. It is
also about the movement of people, ideas, material culture, and
commodities
(e.g., movies, music, "traditional" Chinese medicine), and a
whole host of flows
unmoored from fixed nation-states.38
Globalization has led to questions about the rights and
privileges of citizen-
ship and whether citizenship extends beyond the limits of the
nation-state.39

Indeed, the proliferation of types of citizenships now under
consideration is an
indication of the current crisis surrounding the meaning of
citizenship. Some
argue that there are "economic citizens;' who through their labor
contribute
to the well-being of society.40 Others argue for transnational
citizenship, post-
national citizenship, transmigrant citizenship, transborder
citizenship, and
INTRODUCTION :1:1
flexible citizenship, each of which recognizes that migrants
often maintain lives
that extend across the borders of nation-statesY Then there are
"denizens,"
legal residents of a country who are not naturalized citizens but
enjoy some
economic and political rightsY Victoria Bernal observes that an
"emotional
citizenship" emerges through the use of the Internet by the
widely dispersed
Eritrean refugees. 43 Others point to social inequalities that
create a segmented
citizenship, as some members of society are more valued than

others, who
often become stigmatized.44 Some also argue that immigrants
and minorities
are engaged in a struggle for cultural citizenship, reflecting
their claims for in-
clusion in society.45
Whilt, then, do we mean by citizenship? As a key concept in
American cul-
ture, citizenship can, and does, have many meanings.46 It can
range from the
notion of being a "good citizen;' implying responsible
membership in a so-
cial group, to strict legal definitions of rights and privileges.
Incorporating im-
migrants into society entails a transformation from "other" to
"us:' However,
becoming part of the "us," or to be included as part of the "we,"
as in "we the
people;' is a contested process partly because it is not clear
what this process
entailsY Meanings of such seemingly concrete and objective
terms as "citizen"
and "citizenship" fluctuate over time and place. And
immigration always com-
plicates the notion of citizenship.48 Should immigrants and

their children be
included as citizens? Under what conditions should they be
included in the
national body? How we answer these questions depends on the
way we perceive
immigrants, which in turn is often based on what we know of
them through
their "virtual" lives, which are constructed through media
representations.49
The problem is that real lives of immigrants and their children
may not! cor-
respond to their media-constructed virtual lives, as Chapter 2
suggests.
In a thorough review of the literature, Linda Bosniak found that
there are
four distinct understandings of citizenship: as legal status; as
rights; as political
activity; and as a form of collective identity and sentiment. 50
It is from the last of
these definitions of citizenship that issues of cultural
citizenship emerge. These
four elements of citizenship find their analogues in the public
debates and
events focused on immigration, whether the actors are
immigrants themselves

or those posturing for restrictive immigration policies and
greater surveillance
of borders. Through the interplay of these four elements in daily
dis'course, the
media, and governmental policies, we construct and define
"citizens" in con-
trast to "noncitizen" subjects, as well as put pressure on society
to broaden the
definition of citizenship (the immigrants' and their supporters'
agenda).
12 INTRODUCTION
Citizenship as legal Status
Simply put, for many, citizenship is about legal recognition. In
this sense, citi-
zenship refers to formal membership in an organized political
community. 51
But, as Bosniak observes, problems arise over defining who is
entitled to ac-
quire citizenship, and deciding where to draw the line between
citizens and
"aliens" when it comes to allocating rights and privileges
(voting, education,

health care, driver's licenses, etc.).52 For the millions of
undocumented im-
migrants in the United States, as well as other countries, the
lack of a formal
legal status becomes a salient factor in this framing of
citizenship. 53 Moreover,
collapsing a lack of legal status with criminality adds another
justification
for denying undocumented immigrants legal recognition or
amnesty, which
would, the argument goes, be tantamount to rewarding criminals
with a path
to citizenship.
Citizenship as Rights
For many, especially anti-immigration groups such as the
Minuteman Proj-
ect, citizenship is also about rights, privileges, and
responsibilities. What dis-
tinguishes citizens from aliens are precisely the rights and
privileges reserved
for citizens. However, immigrants, including undocumented
immigrants, also
have rights in many nations, including the United States, where
the Consti-

tution speaks of "persons;' not citizens, when describing
inalienable rights. 54
Consequently, immigrants have enjoyed rights to juridical due
process, fair
labor standards and practices, education, emergency medical
care, and more. 55
Complicating this issue further are claims to basic human rights
or rights based
on universal or extranational agreements, such as the United
Nations' Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. 56
Rights accorded to immigrants put pressure on the concept of
citizenship,
extending it beyond a narrow legal definition to include
economic and cul-
tural rights as part of the conceptualization of citizenship.57
However, since
rights are part of a process of defining citizens and aliens,
affording rights to
immigrants can reflect, for some, a dilution of citizenship,
reducing its value
in a calculus of privileges. 58 Not surprisingly, anti-immigrant
discourse and
actions are often framed around rights and privileges-that is,

reducing the
rights and privileges afforded to immigrants, an idea that has
found its place
in immigration policy. For example, the 1996 immigration law
made it more
difficult to become a legal resident, broadened the criteria for
deportation even
for permanent legal residents,59 and lessened opportunities for
due process in
INTRODUCTION 13
deportation cases. The 1996 welfare law removed immigrants
from eligibil-
ity for many social services. In addition, there are persistent
calls to deny un-
documented children access to public education, to deny
citizenship to the
U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, and to deny
public housing
and medical care to undocumented immigrants. Undocumented
immigrants
are refused driver's licenses in many states. In effect, these
policies redefine
the value of citizenship by reducing the rights and privileges
accorded to im-

migrants. The controversy over organ transplants for
immigrants, especially
those illegally in the country, is particularly revealing of the
battle over citizen-
ship rights and privileges and is examined in Chapter 5.
Citizenship· as Political Activity
Regarding citizenship as political activity is common among
political theorists
going back to Aristotle, and its meaning in this sense refers to
"active engage-
ment in the life of the political community:'60 But what is the
meaning of "com-
munity?" Is the political activity of citizens possible only
within the confines
of the nation-state? Or has globalization produced new forms of
citizenship to
include political organizations and activities that traverse
national boundar-
ies? It is here that pressures to expand notions of citizenship
come into play,
with new forms of global citizenship and transnational
citizenship becoming
part of political discourse. 61 As the sites of citizenship expand,

there has been a
rejection of the state as the only site of citizen participation and
a move toward
a more pluralistic view of citizenship located in the groups and
communi-
ties where people live.62 As Bosniak noted, these alternative
sites of citizenship
t'
practices have increasingly been considered as part of "civil
society."63 This neyv
conception of citizenship provides an opening for immigrant
practices of citi-
zenship. Immigrants, even the undocumented, engage in
political coalitions,
movements, mobilizations, and other practices that would
constitute political
citizenship in their communities.64
Nina Glick Schiller has argued that this opening up of
citizenship has led
scholars to distinguish between political citizenship and social
citizenship.65
Claims of social citizenship occur through social practice rather
than law,
"when people make claims to belong to a state through

collectively organiz-
ing to protect themselves against discrimination, or receive
rights and penefits
from a state, or make contributions to the development of a
state and the life
of people within it."66 Citizenship as social practice is different
from a more
cultural or identity-based approach to citizenship.
:1.4 INTRODUCTION
Citizenship as Identity/Solidarity
Understanding citizenship as based in identity and solidarity
recognizes that
subjective experiences color how people understand the concept
of citizenship.
The practices of natives and immigrants alike produce citizen-
subjects who
have affective ties of identification and solidarity with social
groups maintained
through direct contact or merely imagined as communities.67
Feelings of citi-
zenship, belonging, and social integration can extend from the
very local to the

transnational. Such sentiments are not entirely determined by
legal definitions
of citizenship or by the borders of nation-states.6s As Susan
Coutin has noted,
feelings of belonging arise despite the "legal nonexistence" of
undocumented
immigrants.69 In other words, to feel part of a community is
determined not
solely by immigration status but also by sentiments influenced
by social rela-
tionships and cultural beliefs and practices.70
It is within this sense of citizenship that claims for cultural
citizenship be-
come grounded in experiences and subject-making.?! Flores and
Benmayor
define cultural citizenship as the result of a broad range of
activities that dis-
advantaged groups use to claim space and rights in society.72
More specifically,
Rosaldo and Flores define cultural citizenship as "the right to be
different with
respect to the norms of the dominant national community,
without compro-

mising one's right to belong:'73 The immigrant marches during
the spring of
2006 were instances of claims for cultural citizenship.
Immigrants, if only for a
brief time, claimed the "town square" as a place for their public
performances
of civic participation and cultural citizenship.74
However, Rosaldo and Flores's definition of cultural
citizenship, as claim-
ing the right to be different, may not be enough.75 Feelings of
belonging and
desire for inclusion in the social body exist in a dialectical
relationship with the
larger society and the state, which mayor may not find such
claims for cultural
citizenship convincing. In this sense, cultural citizenship as
subject-making is
not a unilateral act, as Ong argues when she refers to it "as a
dual process of self-
making and being made within webs of power linked to the
nation-state and
civil society." She adds, "Becoming a citizen depends on how
one is constituted
as a subject who exercises or submits to power relations."76

Ong's emphasis on the nation-state's role in defining cultural
citizens builds
on Michel Foucault's observations on governmentality.77
Foucault argues that
subjects are created through the modern regimes and practices
of governance,
such as inscription, inspection, registration, statistics, and, in
this case, restric-
tions on immigration and citizenship.78 For Ong, the nation-
state, through a
INTRODUCTION :1.5
process of individuation, constructs people in specific ways as
citizens, so that
one can speak of citizen taxpayers, consumers, and welfare
dependents.79 The
practices of governance also define the noncitizen. so
In addition to the state, civil society also plays a role in
disciplining immi-
grants with proper normative behavior and constructing their
identity. SI For
example, the many groups organized around the politics of
restricting immi-
gration are constantly engaged in individuating different types
of immigrants

,from citizens, defining citizenship, and limiting immigrants'
claims to cultural
citizenship.s2 A way to challenge citizenship claims is through
discourse that
calls into question a group's loyalty to the nation, danger to the
nation, and
legitimate ,claims to membership in the nation. The Latino
Threat Narrative is
such a discourse.
As this discussion suggests, citizen and citizenship have various
meanings
that move us away from overreliance on legalistic definitions.
Citizenship as
social participation and as subjective understandings of cultural
identity also
must be taken into account when trying to understand notions of
belonging
in today's world. The objective here is to explore these
questions in various
sites where issues of immigration and citizenship have become
contested ter-
rain. Of interest are such seemingly disparate subjects as the
Minutemen in
Arizona, immigrant marches, Latina reproduction, and organ
transplants. All

of these subjects raise serious debate over who is a legitimate
member of soci-
ety and deserving of the rights and privileges of citizenship.
Importantly, the
Latino Threat Narrative pervades these sites of contestation
over belonging to
the nation. I
OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS
Part 1 examines the development, over the last forty years or so,
of a set of
taken-for-granted assumptions or "truths" about Latin
American, mainly Mexi-
can, immigrants and their offspring. This first part takes an
admittedly empiri-
cal approach because sometimes critiquing discourse is not
enough; at ,times
counterevidence must be brought to bear on the truth claims
being put fotward
in the Latino Threat Narrative. However, I pursue this cultural
criticism, know-
ing that it is difficult to destroy myths that have developed over
a long time and
in some respects go back to the nineteenth century.S3 Such
myths have 6rganic-

like lives of their own.S4 Once given birth, they grow and take
on ever more
elaborate and refined characteristics until they are able to stand
on their own as
taken-for-granted "truths:'
:1.6 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 focuses on how popular discourse and the media
represent Lati-
nos as an invading force that is conspiring, in Quebec-like
fashion, to reconquer
the u.s. Southwest. Moreover, Latinos, according to this
discourse, are unable,
or unwilling, to learn English and generally integrate into U.S.
society. These
representations constitute the "virtual" lives of immigrants and
their imagined
threats to the nation. The Latino Threat Narrative underlies
much of the public
debate over immigration and immigration policy, as well as the
struggle over
citizenship examined in subsequent chapters.
Chapter 2 moves to a different register, one that interrogates the
veracity

of various premises of the Latino Threat Narrative. According
to the narrative,
Mexicans (and other Latin American immigrants are often
lumped with Mexi-
cans here) are unable or unwilling to integrate into U.S. society,
preferring to
remain linguistically and socially isolated, and, in the
narrative's more sinister
renditions, they and their offspring are part of a conspiracy to
take over the
southwestern United States. I examine these issues, using data
on immigrants
and the children of immigrants in Orange County, California.
Chapter 3 looks at reproduction and fertility as sites of political
debate over
the nation and citizenship. In the Latino Threat Narrative,
Latina fertility is
represented as a threat to the nation, and Latinas and their
children are a key
component of the reconquest hypothesis. Issues range from
population explo-
sions to birthright citizenship, but at the core of the politics of
reproduction are
representations of the "hot" Latina and her "out-of-control"

fertility. Latinas
are represented as locked into a cultural tradition and Catholic
religious doc-
trine that renders them slaves to childbearing. Through such
representations,
Latinas are integrated into a stratified system in which their
reproduction is
feared rather than valued. Their very bodies symbolize key
aspects of the Latino
Threat Narrative. Not surprisingly, the politics of reproduction
does not stop
at Latinas' bodies but also focuses on their children. For
example, so-called
anchor babies, those born to undocumented mothers, have been
recipients of
heated political rhetoric and policy proposals that would further
burden their
already abject and difficult lives.
Chapter 4 reconsiders Latina fertility and reproduction though
the lens of
empirical findings from two research projects in Orange
County, California.
Although it may be impossible to refute deeply held beliefs,
Latina reproduc-

tive behavior and fertility levels do change in response to new
historical con-
texts and life circumstances and across generations in the
United States. Latina
sexuality and reproduction are not out of controL Latinas have,
on average,
INTRODUCTION :1.7
fewer children over time in the United States within the first
generation, and
the trend continues across generations.
Part 2 focuses on media-infused spectacles surrounding organ
transplants
for undocumented immigrants, Minutemen along the Arizona-
Mexico border,
and immigrant marches. These cases became spectacles because
of the pub-
lic performances of the actors involved and because of the large
volume of
media attention and public opinion they generated.8s Each case
was the topic
,of myriad news stories on radio, television, newspapers,
magazines, and the
Internet. Pundits in each of these media explored the politics of
these events,

sometimes in reasoned debate but more often as pandering to
anti-immigrant
sentiment.,Evident in these cases is the way in which the Latino
Threat Narra-
tive informs struggles over the meaning of citizenship-that is,
who is a legiti-
mate member of society and thus deserving of the privileges of
citizenship.
Foucault's ideas about biopolitics, surveillance, discipline, and
govern-
mentality-that is, the techniques for the control of the conduct
of popula-
tions-frame the analysis of events in these chapters.86
Immigrants internalize
a subject status as a result of the pervasive Latino Threat
Narrative, media rep-
resentations of their lives, debates over their inclusion or
exclusion from the
community of citizens, and government policies targeted at
them. Immigrants
and their families also resist the pervasive negative
representations of their lives.
At the same time, the targeting of immigrants allows citizens to
reaffirm their

own subject status vis-a.-vis the immigrant Other.
Chapter 5 examines organ transplants as a site of biopolitics
over citizen-
ship and its privileges. The body of the nation and the body of
the citizen merge
metaphorically and literally when considering organ
transplantation. The par-
ticular case of Jesica Santillan, the unfortunate recipient of a
"bungled trans-
plant;' reveals the way in which undocumented immigrants, in
particular, raise
intense debate over who constitute legitimate recipients of
"citizen organs."87
Characterizing "illegal alien bodies" as undeserving of citizen
organs actually
increases the biovalue of immigrant bodies, in that this
disciplinary disc,ourse
ensures a net flow of organs from immigrants to citizen bodies.
Chapter 6 takes a critical look at the Minuteman Project's
surveillance in the
Arizona desert in the spring of 2005. Emerging out of nowhere,
the Minuteman
Project quickly captured the imagination of those who believed

that immigra-
tion was a problem and that illegal Mexican immigration in
particular had to
be stopped. The Minutemen created a media spectacle on the
Arizona-Mexico
border as a way to both reaffirm the privileges of citizenship
and influence
:1.8 INTRODUCTION
policy makers to enhance border surveillance and promote anti-
immigration
reform. The taken-for-granted truths of the Latino Threat
Narrative developed
in Chapter 1 form the backdrop for the Minuteman Project's
activities.
Finally, Chapter 7 explores the cultural and political
significance of the
large marches and demonstrations by immigrants and their
supporters in the
spring of 2006. The marches were a response to the House of
Representatives
bill 4437, especially the provisions that would have made felons
of all undocu-

mented immigrants in the country. In addition, however, the
marches were
also about something much grander, the immigrants' laying
claim to social
and cultural citizenship and to respect, even for those lacking
authorization
to be in the country. Marginal groups in a society can use
spectacles as a way
of defining citizenship from the bottom up because it is through
such public
events that citizenship is performed and constructed. 88 What
we find is that
organized public events are not restricted to the strong and
powerful; though
perhaps more difficult for those without resources, the weak
also can perform
citizenship through public spectacles.89 Through acts such as
the immigrant
marches, citizenship is performed and becomes part of an
identity represented
to the larger society.90 When immigrants marched en masse
they performed
the role of citizen-subjects, but citizens of a particular
sensibility: the economi-

cally contributing, entrepreneurial, government services-
avoiding neoliberal
citizen-subject.
CONSTRUCTING AND CHALLENGING MYTHS
THE LATINO THREAT NARRATIVE
THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, heightened a public
discourse on the dan-
gers the United States faces in the contemporary world.
President George W.
Bush developed a general strategy for the national security of
the United States
while critics focused on the dangers inherent in forging an
empire in the mod-
ern world.! Americans seemed willing to allow the
constitutional rights of
foreigners and immigrants to be diminished so long as those of
citizens ap-
peared to remain intact, a dangerous bargain at best.2 But if
there has been
one constant in both pre- and post-9111 public discourse on
national security,
it has been the alleged threat to the nation posed by Mexican
and other Latin

America immigration and the growing number of Americans of
Mexican de-
scent in the United States. The themes in this discourse have
been so consistent
over the last forty years that they could be said to be
independent of the current
fear of international terrorism. However, the events of 9/11
"raised the stakes"
and added a new and urgent argument for confronting all
perceived threats to
national security, both old and new.
The Latino threat, though old, still has currency in the new, post
-9/11 world.
Consider Samuel P. Huntington's views expressed in an article
in the~arch-
April 2004 issue of Foreign Policy. Huntington compared
Latinos, especially
Mexicans, with earlier waves of European immigrants and found
that "unlike
past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not
assimilated into
mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and
1llguistic

enclaves-from Los Angeles to Miami-and rejecting the Anglo-
Protestant
values that built the American dream!'3 He also made these
assertions: "Demo-
21
22 CONSTRUCTING AND CHALLENGING MYTHS
graphically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-
conquest) of the South-
west United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway";
"In this new era,
the single most immediate and most serious challenge to
America's traditional
identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration
from Latin
America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of those
immigrants
compared to black and white American natives."4
Huntington's statements are all the more remarkable given the
historical
context in which they were made. At the time, the United States
was waging
war in Iraq, deeply involved in the war on terrorism in

Mghanistan, and still
searching for Osama bin Laden and AI Qaeda operatives
worldwide. And yet
amidst all these crises, Huntington singled out Latin American,
particularly
Mexican, immigration as America's most serious challenge. But
this threat did
not suddenly surface after 9/11; Huntington had raised the alarm
a year before
the attack on the World Trade Center. In 2000, Huntington
wrote in the Ameri-
can Enterprise: "The invasion of over 1 million Mexican
civilians is a compa-
rable threat [as 1 million Mexican soldiers] to American
societal security, and
Americans should react against it with comparable vigor.
Mexican immigra-
tion looms as a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural
integrity, our
national identity, and potentially to our future as a country."s
Rather than discarding Huntington's rhetorical excesses as
bombastic hy-
perbole, we are better served by attempting to clarify the social
and histori-

LATINO IMMIGRATION MYTH1What is your myth My myth is.docx

LATINO IMMIGRATION MYTH1What is your myth My myth is.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

LATINO IMMIGRATION MYTH1What is your myth My myth is.docx