Silencing the Counter-narrative: Contradictions in Immigration Policies in US History
America has always been considered the land of opportunity, from the arrival of the first European immigrants. Today, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, religious affiliations, etc., children are indoctrinated into American patriotism through the pledge of allegiance. Yet we seldom realize the inconsistencies and contradictions even within this simple recitation. For example, reciting “One nation, under God” when America was founded on separation of church and state. However minute this statement may seem, it illustrates a larger issue: America’s governance is riddled with contradictions — so much so that its own citizens lack protection under the “Republic” we swear to uphold. One particular issue that highlights this is scapegoating immigrants and ignoring the counter-narrative. The counter-narrative, per Professor Edwin Lindo at University of Washington, School of Medicine, is defined as “justice, which is achieved by hearing the stories of those left out of the conversations — the most marginalized and oppressed.” Whether it is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Mexican repatriation, the Japanese Relocation executive order from 1942–45, or the war on terrorism today, America has a history of scapegoating immigrants, stripping them of their fundamental rights and ignoring the counter-narrative.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a response to the growing anti-Chinese sentiment following the success of Chinese laborers and the growth of Chinese communities in the 1850s. This is considered one of the first laws that prevented entry of a particular ethnic group “on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities.”[1] Here, not only was immigration on the basis of race denied, but individuals of Chinese ancestry who were born in the United States had to fight for the right to be allowed entry into the US. For example, one individual, born and raised in San Francisco, had to fight for re-entry into the US after visiting China in 1898 in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[2] Not only was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 an act of abuse of power and systemic racism, but also fear that led to suppression of a minority group and their rights.
Parallels from this narrative can be seen today with the Executive Order 13769 — also known colloquially as the Muslim travel ban, lasting 90 days, which violates the first amendment (freedom of religion). It not only prevented refugees who had completed screenings from entering the US but also prevented the family members who were US citizens from visiting.[3] Moreover, US citizens were denied re-entry during this tumultuous period such as teenager Zubaidah Alizoti. Though chalked up to an airline error, it is important to note that a Muslim individual wearing a hijab returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca with her family, was denied re-entry.
Another instant of scapegoating immigrants and ignoring the rights of citizens was during the Mexican and Mexican-American repatriation between 1929 and 1936 due to fear during the Great Depression and anti-Mexican sentiment. During this time, more than 1 million individuals of Mexican descent were removed from the United States and sent to Mexico, over 60% of whom were American citizens.[4] As Francisco Balderrama states, the term repatriation indicates voluntarily.[4] This term ignores the counter-narrative and places a ‘positive’ twist on this horrendous event, in order to appease the majority or white-dominant community. This event should, in fact, be considered extreme coercion, perhaps even removal of a group of people on the basis of their race-their skin color. There is no other explanation for how 60% of Mexican-American citizens were removed from the US. Especially considering the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark set the basis that those born in the US are considered US citizens.
Japanese internment camps from 1942–1945 share similar parallels. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Executive Order 9066 was passed and termed “Japanese Relocation”. The parallels: the removal of a group of people on the basis of their ancestry, the labels used to name this event, and the discounting of citizen rights. Especially critical here is the disregard for the counter-narrative. The term “relocation” has a positive connotation, as defined by Merriam-Webster: “establish or lay out in a new place”. Again, there is a sense of voluntarism to this term when in fact, this was a forced move of a group of people from a common ancestry, 70% of whom were American citizens.[5] The accurate terms would be internment camps, incarceration, imprisonment — all of which defy Amendments 4 (no unreasonable search or arrest) and 6 (right to a speedy trial). Moreover, the cognitive dissonance of the majority in power denouncing Jewish internment camps in Europe during World War II yet incarcerating their own citizens illustrates the blatant disregard of morality and suppressing the counter-narrative.
Notice any similarities between the discussion thus far and the War on Terrorism today? The Muslim travel ban of 2017 is only one example. Let’s not forget the jailing of Muslim individuals after 9/11. Many of these individuals were Muslim Americans, citizens of this country. Again, Amendments 4 and 6 were ignored in the name of “public safety”. Of the 1,182 cases, the majority of men arrested after 9/11 were of Pakistani descent from New York despite the fact that hijackers who planned the attack were from Saudi Arabia and based on the West Coast.[7] Race — aka skin color — undoubtedly played a role in this discrepancy. In these cases, the arrests were without privacy and the detainees were stripped of their fundamental human rights.[7] The abuse of power was evident: search and arrests without warrants, no advising of rights, living in solitary for months on end, and no trial or access to lawyers in some cases.[7] None of these cases lead to a prosecution. This is not a war on terrorism — it is a war on Muslims.
This discussion in no means represents an exhaustive list. Nonetheless, there is a clear history of scapegoating immigrants, which stems from fear and anti-[insert a minority group here] sentiment. So, let’s stop. Let’s stop relabeling America’s history of racism and abuse of power into something positive or voluntary. Let’s stop ignoring the counter-narrative of those impacted most from the disregard of fundamental human rights in this country. Let’s stop indoctrinating our children into a broken system without a critical lens to analyze for themselves. Let’s stop pretending that America was ever great to begin with and call it like it is. Only then can we begin to create an institution that does not silence the voice of the marginalized, that protects the rights of its citizens, and that upholds the fundamental rights of human beings.
References:
1. Teaching with Documents: Using Primary Sources from the National Archives. [Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1989.] pp. 82–85.
2. Hillesheim, J. (2018, June 04). How the Chinese Exclusion Act Still Impacts the U.S. Today. Retrieved from https://www.rewire.org/our-future/chinese-exclusion-act/
3. Timeline of the Muslim Ban. (2018, November 26). Retrieved from https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban
4. Gross, T. (Writer). (2015, September 10). America’s Forgotten History Of Mexican-American ‘Repatriation’ [Transcript, Radio series episode]. NPR.
5. (2015, September 10). Retrieved June 04, 2019, from https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=439114563
6. Lee, J. (2002). Japanese Incarceration — Executive Order 9066. Retrieved from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S16 — Japanese Incarceration — Executive Order 9066 (1942).htm
7. Detained Without Cause: Muslims’ Stories of Detention and Deportation in America after 9/11. Irum Shiekh. Palgrave Macmillan. March 2011.
