Schizophrenia: Immigration Discourse
In the United States, immigration has a special place in the public imagination – Americans frequently refer to themselves as a nation of immigrants and are proud of their foreign roots. At the same time, there is resistance to uncontrolled immigration and migration that occurs outside the established legal framework. The tension between these two positions can be seen in public communications about immigration – and has been seen for centuries. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the inclusion of immigration as a core DHS mission, another narrative – immigration as a security issue – was added to the discourse.
One strong narrative within the public immigration discourse focuses on people who have entered the United States outside established legal channels. The image below contains several central elements of the narrative: migrants are often called “illegal aliens”, they are viewed as a threat to the US (see the sign “CLOSE OUR BORDERS”), they are viewed as unwelcome presences in the country and US citizens are viewed as victims of illegal immigration (see the sign “KICK ME! I AM A CITIZEN!”). This narrative highlights the dark side of immigration and casts all immigration in a questionable (and dangerous) light. It frames immigration as largely a bad thing for the US.
A second strong narrative within the public immigration discourse focuses on the lives and difficulties of people without legal immigration status. This narrative often describes migrants as “undocumented workers”, highlights the legal and day-to-day challenges faced by families with members who do not have legal immigration status (see the sign below “NO MORE FAMILIES TORN APART”), emphasizes that many people without legal immigration status are working and paying taxes and wants immigration programs that will help undocumented people gain legal status. This narrative emphasizes the good parts of immigration – people want to be in the US to work and to be with their families, goals that many Americans support. It casts immigration in a positive light.
The third, and relatively new, narrative within the public immigration discourse is immigration as a homeland security issue. This narrative was born in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The hijackers who flew commercial airlines into the WTC and the Pentagon were all non-US citizens who entered the US legally and remained in the country for an extended period before the attacks. Lawmakers and members of the public severely criticized an immigration system that allowed terrorists to enter and remain in the country legally. With the creation of DHS, securing the nation’s borders and enforcing and administering the nation’s immigration laws became high priorities in the new social construct of “homeland security”. Within this narrative, immigration is a set of laws to be enforced and administered and a means of protecting the nation and its citizens. This narrative places importance on the legal structures around immigration and highlights both the beneficent side of immigration (granting citizenship and humanitarian benefits) and the consequence side of immigration (deportation).
These narratives interact with each other, evolving with time, place and the individuals and groups who create and engage with them. At their core, they compete for legitimacy in representing citizens, immigrants and the immigration process. The competition is reflected in the United States’ immigration laws – there are numerous humanitarian programs and millions of people come to the United States in many immigration statuses, from permanent to temporary, every year. At the same time, the United States deports a large number of people every year, and many of them have strong ties to the United States, including family and work.
While immigration laws reflect the influence of the public immigration narratives, DHS’ administration and enforcement of those laws, in turn, influences the public narratives, with government actions reinforcing or challenging elements within each narrative. The narratives continually evolve as they interact with each other. As no narrative has destroyed the other, the United States can expect to continue to see laws that reflect competing narratives.
