The Rhetorics of US Immigration: Identity, Community, Otherness 9780271076553

Citation preview

THE RHETORICS OF US IMMIGRATION

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd i

8/5/15 2:04 PM

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd ii

8/5/15 2:04 PM

THE RHETORICS OF US IMMIGRATION IDENTITY, COMMUNITY, OTHERNESS

Edited by E . J o h a n n a H a r t e l i u s insert Title,page.pdf as shown

The Pennsylvania State University Press University Park, Pennsylvania

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd iii

8/5/15 2:04 PM

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The rhetorics of US immigration : identity, community, otherness / edited by E. Johanna Hartelius. pages cm Summary: “Examines U.S. immigration as a rhetorical process inventing persons and communities in reference to space and place. Engages immigration in media and popular culture; the construction of immigrant experiences in public discourse; and the effects of fear, violence, and exclusion on immigrant and non-immigrant communities”—Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-271-06718-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. United States—Emigration and immigration. 2. Rhetoric—United States. I. Hartelius, E. Johanna, 1979– , editor. jv6465.r44 2015 304.8'73—dc23 2015008147 Copyright © 2015 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of American University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd iv

8/5/15 2:04 PM

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments | vii Introduction | 1 E. Johanna Hartelius

part 1 activism and public campaigns 1 Facing Ghosts, God, and Nature: Affect, Naturalization, and the “No Más Cruces” Border Campaign | 25 Terence Check and Christine Jasken 2 Faithful Sovereignty: Denationalizing Immigration Policy in the 2003 Pastoral Letter on Migration | 50 Anne Teresa Demo 3 Protecting LGBT Migrants: The Rhetoric of Identity and the Expansion of the Prison-Industrial Complex | 70 Karma R. Chávez

part 2 identity struggles and DREAMers 4 Dropping the “I-Word”: A Critical Examination of Contemporary Immigration Labels | 93 Claudia A. Anguiano 5 “American” Children’s Success and Global Competitiveness: The Racial Paradox of Bilingualism as Cultural Capital | 112 Dina Gavrilos

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd v

8/5/15 2:04 PM

vi

|

contents

6 Documenting Dreams: A Rhetorical Performance of Inclusive Citizenship and Collaborative Expertise | 133 Yazmin Lazcano-Pry

part 3 (hi)stories of exclusion 7 Constituting Enemies Through Fear: The Rhetoric of Exclusionary Nationalism in the Control of “Un-American” Immigrant Populations | 157 Emily Ironside and Lisa M. Corrigan 8 Defining the Right Sort of Immigrant: Theodore Roosevelt and American Character | 183 Jay P. Childers 9 Immigration as Histories of Mob-ility: Personal Storytelling in the Where Are You From? Project | 204 Alessandra B. Von Burg

part 4 affect and media imagery 10 Battling Identity Warfare on the Imagined US/México Border: Performing Migrant Alien in Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles | 225 Michael Lechuga 11 Affect, Emotion, and Immigration Rhetoric, or What Happens When a Minuteman Lives with Unauthorized Immigrants? | 247 J. David Cisneros Afterword: Tracking the “Shifting Borders” of Identity and Otherness; Productive Complications and Ethico-Political Commitments | 275 D. Robert DeChaine About the Contributors | 289 Index | 293

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd vi

8/5/15 2:04 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This volume emerged over the course of several years and in that time assumed multiple forms. What began as an idea for a special issue became a book. A book became a conference panel (Rhetoric Society of America, San Antonio, Texas, 2014). We who kept “bumping into one another” virtually and in person became a cohort of scholars concerned with the same issue, the rhetorical practices of immigration. As editor, I would like to acknowledge the ingenuity, patience, and dedication of the authors included in this volume; their commitment to scholarship on immigration rhetorics is both remarkable and promising. Special recognition is owed the scholars whose work on immigration rhetoric in the past few decades has created an interdisciplinary subfield and literature of note: Bernadette Marie Calafell, Karma R. Chávez, J. David Cisneros, D. Robert DeChaine, Fernando P. Delgado, Anne Teresa Demo, Lisa A. Flores, Marouf A. Hasian, Michelle A. Holling, Kent A. Ono, Richard D. Pineda, John M. Sloop, Stacey K. Sowards, and Mary Ann Villareal. DeChaine’s Border Rhetorics (University of Alabama Press, 2012), which includes work by several of the authors in the present volume, was immeasurably instructive and inspirational. I value DeChaine’s kind encouragement and prompt professionalism and am thrilled that he agreed to contribute an afterword. I am grateful to those who offered their expertise in the process of editing, the masters of cat herding: Raymie McKerrow, Angela Ray, Barry Brummett, Marty Medhurst, and Vanessa Beasley. I thank the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh and the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences for their generous support in the form of a research fund and a third-term research stipend. I thank the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Texas at Austin for hosting me as a visiting scholar in the summer of 2014. I much appreciate the indomitable Kendra Boileau, editor-in-chief of Penn State Press.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd vii

8/5/15 2:04 PM

viii

|

acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize the contributions of a few important persons and institutions to their projects and chapters: Bruce Campbell; Todd Scribner (PhD), educational outreach coordinator, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Rodolfo Hernández, chief creative officer at Elevación; and the North Carolina Humanities Council and Wake Forest University for their support of the Where Are You From? Project. Finally, I thank the two Zs for their joy and love.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd viii

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction E. Johanna Hartelius

Since 2011, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the US-Mexico border, specifically the Rio Grande Valley, has surged to tens of thousands per year. Between October 2013 and June 2014, more than forty-seven thousand were apprehended by US customs agents, many of them under the age of thirteen. Shelter facilities are overburdened and administrators backlogged. The news media report that many of the children leave families behind to escape the violence and coercive recruitment efforts of Central American gangs. Many set out to find a parent or relative living in the United States, oftentimes without documentation. This is an international, humanitarian, political, and logistical crisis. Moreover, it is a rhetorical crisis, a matter of enduring mythologies and symbolic classifications with material consequences. The US Customs and Border Protection Agency refers to the young immigrants as “unaccompanied alien children”; the UN Refugee Agency as “children on the run.” With either label, these children illustrate the contingency of immigration on language, and the powerful rhetoric of social (civic and national) imaginaries. This volume is principally concerned with the fundamental rhetoricity of immigration, analyzing it as a rhetorical process inventing persons and communities with respect to space and place. In this process of invention, the contributors demonstrate, immigrants are constructed as military threats, economic assets, societal burdens, or modern Ellis Island arrivals by border authorities, governmental administrators, corporate agents, and the American public. Our intent with The Rhetorics of US Immigration is to provide readers with an integrated sense of the rhetorical multiplicity circulating among and about immigrants. To this end, the volume engages a cluster of interdependent, mutually implicative, and urgent issues: the articulation of immigrant subjectivities by immigrants and nonimmigrants; the function of these subjectivities in media and popular culture; the construction of immigrant “experiences” in past

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 1

8/5/15 2:04 PM

2

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

and present public discourse; the role of various symbolic forms (such as narrative) in discussions about immigration; the effects of affects; and the consequences of symbolic and material fear, violence, and exclusion on immigrant and nonimmigrant communities. The broad scope and thematic organization of The Rhetorics of US Immigration are intended to model and promote broad scholarly reflection on a topic that in the current geopolitical climate demands innovative inquiry. Further, the volume reflects both the political and cultural state of affairs of immigration rhetorics and the state of the discipline insofar as rhetoricians concerned with immigration rhetorics have selected a wide range of texts for analysis. Some of the contributors explicate the language practices that sustain prejudice, exclusion, and discrimination. They explain how public anti-immigrant sentiments not only influence deliberation and policy but more fundamentally structure immigrant experiences. Others examine mobilization efforts from immigrant communities, particularly young immigrants, rhetorically negotiating the perimeters of citizenship. Still others investigate the function of institutional authorities in immigration discourses, explicating the significance of the language choices of religious and secular leaders. Transcending epistemological and methodological differences, each contributor analyzes the particularities of a case study with two fundamental and mutually contingent assumptions: first, how the public, made up of citizens and noncitizens, talks about and mediates the topic of immigration determines the realities and lived experiences of immigrants and citizens; second, when the public negotiates the political resources at stake in this topic, we not only distinguish insider from outsider, indeed construct the difference between familiar and foreign, but identify the voices worthy of participation in deliberation and governance. In our collaboration, the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration pursue the hermeneutic potential of juxtapositioning. Extant literature on immigration rhetoric, much of which we engage throughout the volume, tends to focus singularly on media coverage, public metaphors, and presidential and activist advocacy. This body of work may be extended and complemented, we submit, by a project whose objective is the synergistic discovery of intersections. An essay examining pastoral letters as a mode of public activism precedes an essay on the conditions of detained LGBTQ immigrants because the sequential energy contains significant potential. Because the topics, grouped into units, range broadly, readers may see connections within rhetorics of immigration that are not typically evident and that have not been treated in publications with a more particular agenda. Our intention is that readers may

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 2

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

3

see themes between, for example, young immigrants publicly rejecting the classification of “illegal” and Hollywood’s fictional depictions of the alien menace (Lechuga); or between affect and emotion (Cisneros) and the idea of “naturalization” as a phase of the immigration narrative (Check and Jasken); or in the rhetorical resources of a historical memory (Von Burg, Childers) in which immigrants are malleable figures and migration a practice of paracitizenship. The interstices rendered by the essays’ thematic clusters represent an effort to foster readers’ capacity for inquiry and invention.

Immigration Rhetorics: Language and Labels A cohort of rhetorical scholars have in the past three decades written cogent analyses of immigration rhetorics, directing attention to many of the same issues that preoccupy and motivate The Rhetorics of US Immigration. For example, of primary concern to rhetoricians has long been the problematic representation of immigrants in official discourses and mass media. In their respective chapters, Terence Check and Christine Jasken, Anne Demo, Emily Ironside and Lisa Corrigan, J. David Cisneros, and Michael Lechuga engage related questions of institutional power and the influence of news coverage and entertainment media. Another powerfully emerging theme in immigration rhetoric literature assesses the emancipatory potential of vernacular discourses through which immigrant communities, particularly Chicana/o and Latina/o communities, self-articulate/invent, mobilize as activists, and negotiate conventional citizenship. This research has influenced most of the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration, although its driving topoi may be most evident in the chapters by Karma R. Chávez, Claudia Anguiano, and Alessandra Von Burg. Central questions in these chapters and elsewhere include: How are immigrant subjectivities formed negatively and positively in response to, or beyond, the premises of media representations? What modes and performances of activism are commensurate with, and effective for, various immigrant communities? What are the prospects of cultural citizenship for democratic participation? How vulnerable are immigrant rights activists’ rhetorical strategies to dominant ideologies, and the reproduction thereof? Finally, a segment of the rhetorical scholarship on immigration centers on young immigrant communities, so-called DREAMers; this literature resonates in the chapters by Dina Gavrilos and Yazmin Lazcano-Pry.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 3

8/5/15 2:04 PM

4

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

The phrase “rhetoric of immigration” itself applies to a variety of constitutive and instrumental language practices, a few of which it may be instructive to identify.

• It refers to conversations among those who make policy, both within the formal policymaking procedure and in the mediated process of communicating that procedure’s phases and results to the public. When the US House Homeland Security Committee passed H.R. 1417 on May 15, 2013, chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) commented on the immigration “problem” and on the bill’s plan to “deal with” illegal immigrants, referencing multiple meanings of the phrase “rhetoric of immigration”: During the Committee debate, Democrats attempted to amend my bill to appropriate $3 billion up front. This is the cart before the horse. It is premature at this point in time to know what that number is. I want to know what their strategy is first. The Republican argument used to defeat this amendment underscores the difference in philosophies between liberals, who want to continue to blindly throw more money at the problem, and conservatives who want to know what the plan is, how much it will cost, and how your money will be spent. This is the kind of accountability that has been missing from Washington for too long!

• The “rhetoric of immigration” refers to the arguments advanced by activists, including organizations with such divergent agendas as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, the Minuteman Project, the National Council of La Raza, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Maldef. These groups participate in a more or less coordinated popular and public debate regarding policy and the immigrant experience. In the summer of 2013, following the resistance of Republican members of Congress to S. 744 (the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act), thousands protested in coalitional rallies across the country; virtual networks focused their efforts on circulating information through social media. As House Republicans debated the issue, thousands gathered on Capitol Hill, holding signs that demanded, “Give Us a Vote on Citizenship!,” “Undocumented and Unafraid,” and “GOP, Rest In Peace!” Inside the Capitol Visitor Center, participants sang the national anthem and said the Pledge of Allegiance. Their exigencies, choices, and strategies in these forums are the “rhetoric of immigration.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 4

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

5

• The “rhetoric of immigration” entails the language of history and memory wherein citizens and noncitizens engage with the past, both real and pseudofictitious, continually reconstructing the “nation of immigrants” notion. In this sense, the “rhetoric of immigration” is generated by monuments and museums, including the Ellis Island memorial, and vice versa; it is illustrated by family heirlooms, photo albums, and the “do-it-yourself ” genealogy websites that are growing in popularity. Indeed, the Ellis Island website provides extensive information about discovering and tracing family lineages through immigrant passages. The “immigrant experience” page contains a “timeline of immigration history [that] shows the forces that brought people from all over the world to America’s shores.” Here, the rhetoric of immigration is an aspect of the rhetoric of the past, with its powerful trajectories presenting circumstances and challenges. The label further applies to the media texts and pop culture artifacts wherein the constructs of “immigration” and “immigrant” are in continuous symbolic negotiation. Documentaries such as Farmingville, 9500 Liberty, Made in LA: Hecho en Los Angeles, and Ni Una Más examine the realities of immigration at the border as well as within the US economy and legal system. Television news magazines periodically shape the public dialogue about immigration with investigative pieces. Fictional television programs like The Bridge, Weeds, Breaking Bad, and Modern Family depict the lives of individual immigrants, perpetuating narratives of secretive and unpredictably violent criminals. Fictional films like Savages and Crash recycle this portrayal, adding to the cast the character of the immigrant in domestic service.

•

The scholars in this volume approach immigration as fundamentally rhetorical insofar as rhetoric itself is fundamental to the human condition beyond, for example, policy debates or legislation. To wit, if rhetoric is the faculty of discerning in any given situation the available means of persuasion, as Aristotle claims, then immigration is rhetorical when DREAM activists stage sit-ins and draw on the LGBTQ community’s “coming out” rhetoric. Ditto when rhetoric is a “mode of altering reality,” as in Lloyd Bitzer’s theory of rhetorical exigencies. If, per Robert Scott, Richard Cherwitz, and Barry Brummett, rhetoric is epistemic—indeed, if ways of knowing and sense making are essentially rhetorical—then knowledge claims in reference to immigration become normative public epistemology (distinguishing, for example, “terrorist” from “refugee”). Anguiano’s analysis of efforts to eradicate the label “illegal” illustrates these epistemic currents in immigration discourses. If this sense-making

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 5

8/5/15 2:04 PM

6

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

process is more narrative than argumentatively propositional, then, as Von Burg demonstrates, telling one’s story of migration is an articulation of self and community that serves as a point of entry for cultural engagements. Diane Davis’s instructive definition of rhetoric—or, rather, rhetoricity—as an originary “affectability or persuadability” that is the condition for symbolic action is reflected in Cisneros’s suggestion that the alterability of public affect contains some promise for progress. Thus immigration is rhetorical not only as a public exchange of arguments but insofar as it is contingent upon individual and collective language choices and symbolic realities.

Exigency: The Geopolitical Moment In the United States, the figure of “the immigrant” has long symbolically instantiated an imagined trajectory of assimilation, progress, and success. In a dialectical tension between past and present perspectives, the figure is both a target of deliberative dispute and a subject of epideictic lore. It at once animates most Americans’ family story and threatens the nation’s sovereignty, order, security, and prosperity. That immigration has been a feature of public culture for centuries is as central to the national memory as the emblematic slogan “We are a nation of immigrants.” This motif reveals how immigration experiences represent interiority and exteriority. While heritage stories passed from generation to generation intimately shape our individual and social selves, immigrants-qua-border crossers come from the outside, embodying the external in the midst of a community. Thus, while one could say that the immigrant “other” negatively delineates the citizenry, this would be reductive. Even as one considers the anti-immigrant discourses that dominate contemporary media coverage and legislative debate, to say that the American public understands immigrants as “not us” obfuscates the complexity of the issue. The “nation of immigrants” mythos constitutes the horizon for modern immigration, complicating efforts to address its challenges. Although surveying either the history of American immigration or the implications of the immigrant nation myth would obviously be beyond the scope of any single volume, it is instructive to identify a few political and cultural developments in the historical present, which provide the fraught context for immigration and this volume’s exigency. During the spring and summer of 2014, the surge of migrant minors to the southern border states exacerbated the intensifying political debate surrounding military enforcement procedures

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 6

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

7

as well as so-called deferred action policies—both interconnected and potentially significant election issues. Border state leaders, including Texas governor Rick Perry, publicly criticized the Obama administration’s management of the crisis, framing the matter as a result of weak security and indirect sanctioning of illegal activity. Advocacy for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative, announced by President Obama in June 2012, was complicated by the arrival of tens of thousands of minors; the policy allows undocumented minors to defer deportation for a period of two years. Presenting further logistical difficulties is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which mandates not only that the Department of Health and Human Services meet the health and legal needs of unaccompanied minor immigrants within seventy-two hours of their apprehension by the Border Patrol—the law was passed to protect victims of drug and sex trafficking, and most of the migrant minors come from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—but also that minors receive a formal hearing prior to deportation. Border states’ struggles to adhere to these provisions are, as this volume goes to press, contributing to political opposition in the US House of Representatives against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013 (see below). The year 2013 marked the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the largest trade bloc in the world. This economic integration, touted originally as an innovative strategy to promote transnational commerce throughout North America, has significantly shaped conditions for immigration. Beyond the scope of NAFTA’s “temporary employee” provisions, granting nonimmigrant status to certain migrant professionals—TN status (Trade NAFTA) is similar to the H1-B visa but more limited and available only to citizens of Canada and Mexico—the economy of the early 1990s meant a growing demand for unskilled labor. The thendominant Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), controversial for both its amnesty regulations and its sanctions against those who employed illegal workers, failed to provide legal avenues for immigration in response to this demand. In confluence with Mexico’s ailing domestic economy and increasingly violent climate of drug and weapon cartel competition, the result was a highly profitable industry of fraudulent identification, a network of coyotes and human traffickers, and perilous ventures in the desert terrain. In addition, 2013 was the twentieth anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, in which an immigrant terrorist detonated a bomb in New York City. Coverage of the 1993 bombing inaugurated the mainstream media’s

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 7

8/5/15 2:04 PM

8

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

now-prevalent portrayal of immigrants, particularly Muslims and/or Arabs, as terrorists. This incriminating representation gained momentum and power after 9/11, aligning with exclusionist policies that targeted specific nationalities and ethnicities. For instance, in November 2002 the Department of Homeland Security introduced a “special registration program,” registering thousands of male noncitizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and other countries of suspicion. Under this “absconder initiative,” the largest registration effort in decades, authorities detained and deported suspects, most of whom were cleared of any connection to terrorism. Despite reports of civil liberties violations, the program was deemed a success by the Justice Department until its termination in May 2003. The increased cross-border migration generated by NAFTA, the impotence of IRCA, and the growing public support for restrictionist and isolationist policy have since the mid-1990s both prompted and served as justification for the “deterrence,” or “prevention through deterrence,” approach to immigration. This approach, which in the 1990s was institutionalized in such severely criminalizing legislation as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, is conceptually grounded in a classicist rational-choice model of criminal behavior and punishment. It operates in tandem with an enforcement-through-attrition model, penalizing individual immigrants or immigrant groups so harshly as to have a discouraging effect on other potential immigrants. Since the 2007 defeat of STRIVE (the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act), the deterrence approach has been reinforced by 287(g) “secure communities” programs across the country, including state-based legislation like Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona Senate bill 1070). The programs allow the states to delegate authority in immigration matters, deputizing local law enforcement. Such deputizations, and subsequent large-scale raids on vulnerable Latina/o communities, have damaged already strained relationships between law enforcement and segments of the Latina/o population, effectively systematizing fear and suspicion as living conditions and professional directives. In the spring of 2012, the matter of undocumented immigration, law enforcement, and state and federal jurisdiction was presented to the US Supreme Court. In Arizona v. United States (11–182), the Supreme Court enjoined as preempted by federal law those sections of the controversial Arizona Senate bill 1070 that make failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; those sections that make it a misdemeanor for a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 8

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

9

person who is unlawfully in the United States to work or actively seek work; and those that authorize warrantless arrests when a law enforcement official has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed such a crime as would be punishable by removal from the United States. Especially contentious was section 2(B), which empowers Arizona law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of a person who has been detained or arrested “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” On this point, the Court chose not to enjoin before state courts could determine enforcement procedures and implications. Arizona Senate bill 1070, which has inspired similar “attrition through enforcement” laws in other states, had already been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Susan Bolton in the US District Court, a ruling that was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Significantly, and although vocal public criticism of Arizona’s law has focused heavily on implications for racial profi ling and the climate of fear in the Latina/o community, race was explicitly not at issue in the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 25, 2012. A year after the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s contested enforcement practices, the US Senate passed S. 744 (the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act). The sponsors, the “Gang of Eight,” were commended for their bipartisan efforts; the bill was characterized in the media as a multifaceted composition, including humanitarian protections of immigrants’ civil rights. It institutes a Department of Homeland Security task force for border oversight and an “Ombudsman for Immigration and Related Concerns with a background in both immigration law and civil and human rights,” and mandates “distress beacons” in the border regions’ most treacherous and deadly terrains. Nevertheless, S. 744 and the House of Representatives’ counterproposal, the Border Security Results Act (H.R. 1417), emphasize security and border enforcement. The primary objectives of “situational awareness” and “operational control” identify surveillance and deterrence as the guiding principles of immigration policy at the border and beyond. These principles are backed in the bills by considerable budget allocations and reporting mandates. Neither initiative, however, devotes resources to policing transnational cartels smuggling weapons, humans, money, or drugs in both directions, a strategy experts have advocated as far more effective than seemingly “tough” enforcement legislation. Surveying the economic and political developments that make up the current context for immigration, it is important to acknowledge a somewhat

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 9

8/5/15 2:04 PM

10

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

different cultural movement, centered on the so-called DREAM Act. This bill, originally introduced by Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in 2001, incorporated partially in reform bills from 2005 to 2007, and reintroduced in 2009 and 2010, redirects public discourse and, potentially, policy on immigration matters insofar as it focuses on a specific class of immigrants. The most recent drafts would provide legal but conditional residency and the opportunity for eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States at age fi fteen or younger upon graduation from a US high school, receipt of a GED, acceptance to college, or enlistment in the armed forces. A community of young immigrants, DREAMers, has mobilized in support of this legislation, not only embodying and animating the fuzzy statistics of undocumented minors but enacting a new iteration of a rhetorical convention in political advocacy: self-labeling. Announcing publicly their lack of resident status in rallies, courtrooms, protests, and forums, DREAMers demand that policymakers confront the inadequacy of the long dominant but rarely acknowledged “we’re not sure what to do with you” model. Rejecting invisibility motivated by fear, they represent a kind of firstgeneration rhetoric of immigration grounded in the articulation of civic subjectivity.

Overview The essays in part 1, “Activism and Public Campaigns,” survey public activism and advocacy campaigns, particularly those revealing the imminent dangers immigrants face. They examine the rhetorical negotiation of authority within immigration debates and attempt to explicate the epistemological implications of these rhetorical practices. Terence Check and Christine Jasken analyze the use of appeals to fear and religious imagery in the US Customs and Border Protection Agency’s 2004 public service campaign “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” (No More Crossing the Border/No More Cemetery Crosses on the Border). Focusing on three television advertisements depicting the dangers of border crossing, they demonstrate how certain enthymematic appeals not only empower the viewer as a co-creator of his or her own persuasion but invest the texts with divine authority: the border is deadly, and those who have died extend their caution from the grave; God disapproves of border crossings, and those who defy his will suffer the brutality of the nature (desert, heat, cold, wildlife, etc.) that he has put in

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 10

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

11

place. Check and Jasken propose that the campaign, via Burkean scapegoating, places the blame for the deaths of thousands of Mexican migrants on the migrants themselves, who choose a risky and God-defying venture; this scapegoating rhetorically absolves US border authorities, policymakers, and citizens. Anne Teresa Demo extends scholarship on immigration rhetorics by reaching beyond the predominant nationalization of the issue and beyond the authority of secular institutions. Analyzing the 2003 pastoral letter on migration, Strangers No Longer, issued jointly by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, Demo explains how an emphasis on hemispheric solidarity, and a reconception of human dignity and rights, sanctioned by divine rather than national authority, denationalizes immigration. The letter, Demo argues, challenges national sovereignty, specifically and by implication in that it subordinates the state’s prerogative to exclude migrating persons to migrating persons’ right to dignity as this right is realized in the pursuit of a living wage. Demo’s chapter responds instructively to calls in rhetorical studies to move the analysis of immigration discourses beyond the conservative politico-economic paradigm sustaining border militarization. In chapter 3, Karma R. Chávez analyzes a set of petitions to the Department of Homeland Security filed in 2011 by the National Immigrant Justice Center, Lambda Legal, and congressional representatives on behalf of LGBT migrants who, while detained within the militarized immigration enforcement system, experienced physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. She explains that while the petitions appear to speak on behalf of a “vulnerable population” in a potentially emancipating or progressive initiative, this potential is circumscribed by deep-seated assumptions about sexuality, criminality, race, and class. The petitioners’ rhetorical strategies warrant close attention, particularly insofar as they affirm the criminal status of immigrants and individualize systemic problems, attributing violence inside detention facilities to “bad apple” guards and officials. Chávez argues that as a function of the petition format and the rhetorical choices made by the petitioners, the LGBT identity is reified as a subset of a class in need of individual advocacy and protection. Chávez’s conceptual critique explicates symbolic and material similarities and intersections between categories commonly thought of as distinct: migrants and LGBT/queer populations, immigration enforcement and the prison industrial complex, liberal activism and the reification of identity essentialism. Building on part 1’s analysis of authority, the essays in part 2, “Identity Struggles and DREAMers,” examine how young immigrants negotiate identity

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 11

8/5/15 2:04 PM

12

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

within various institutions, especially schools and youth programs. They do so in relation to recent legislative efforts, specifically the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. They explore the implications of social class for second-generation immigrants, and reflect on the dialectical tension between publicity, or public recognition, and invisibility as features of young people’s public deliberation. Claudia Anguiano’s chapter analyzes youth activism that targets a reconceptualization of the terminology of immigrants’ legal status. Anguiano contributes to prevailing and limited perceptions of this controversy by demonstrating how the “Drop the I-Word” campaign effectively deconstructs the inaccuracies and dehumanizing and racist implications of visa- and/or citizenship-related labels. Further, she describes the rhetorical strategies of so-called DREAMers, young undocumented immigrants eligible for relief under the DREAM Act. Noting how young activists have shifted the public conversation about their identity from legality to a student-centeredness, have embraced and capitalized on the symbolic connotations of being a “DREAMer,” and have co-opted the idea of being “undocumented” (and unafraid), Anguiano illustrates a generational rhetorical agency and political subjectivity. Dina Gavrilos investigates the ideology of education policy and implementation via what she calls a cultural paradox: the recent rise in popularity of foreign-language programs for white primary school students and the simultaneous rise of English-only curricula limiting immigrant students’ access to English supplemental tutoring and instruction in their native languages. Explicating the racism and classism sustaining this paradox, Gavrilos situates it in the United States’ history of language instruction with nationalist, imperialist, and colonialist motives. She juxtaposes media coverage of white students’ academic success, attributed to bilingual proficiency and the cognitive and socioeconomic benefits thereof, with nonwhite immigrant students’ “language barriers,” repeatedly framed in public debates about education models as obstacles to both intellectual excellence and professional opportunity. Yazmin Lazcano-Pry looks at the intersection of the concepts of rhetorical citizenship and collaborative expertise to examine the agency and civic engagement enacted by young undocumented immigrants. Analyzing a collection of letters in which undocumented youths at GateWay Early College High School in Phoenix, Arizona, thank donors for their financial support of students’ college-level course work, Lazcano-Pry explicates the efficacy of asserting one’s voice from a precarious position, one fraught with legal and cultural threats.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 12

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

13

She argues that the GateWay students’ and principal’s co-construction of expertise in Documented Dreams ought to be interpreted as complicating the concept of citizenship beyond reductive binaries (legal/illegal, citizen/noncitizen). With this approach to undocumented youths’ symbolic presence and production, she joins the scholarly effort to understand the dialectic of rhetorical agency and citizenship. The essays in part 3, “(Hi)stories of Exclusion,” offer a historical perspective on the rhetorical processes that enable the social, political, economic, and cultural exclusion of immigrants from American public life. At stake in these essays is the complexity of “citizenship.” The cultural exclusionary force of a negative definition is an important function of this fraught term—much of its history may be seen as a series of what citizenship is not. Thus the authors in part 3 are concerned with the construction and manipulation of the concept of citizenship, partly to include and define the “good” citizen, but principally to exclude “others” from democratic access. Emily Ironside and Lisa M. Corrigan organize the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ history of American immigration conceptually around “exclusionary nationalism.” Analyzing the concept’s integration of the topoi of assimilation, racism, xenophobia, and classism, they explicate certain patterns in the rhetoric of policymaking. These patterns, they explain, recur through the immigrant experiences of, for example, Mexican laborers and Japanese internment subjects. Moreover, anti-immigrant policymakers define, through exclusive and nativist narratives, the perennially powerful ideals of Americanness, nationalism, and citizenship. Against these narratives and their implications for immigrants’ place in the American polis, Ironside and Corrigan advise activists, particularly those participating in the movement for undocumented youths’ civic rights, to break rhetorically with the identity premises of the dominant national discourse. Jay P. Childers traces the still politically potent delineation of the “right kind” and “wrong kind” of immigrant to President Theodore Roosevelt’s speeches, specifically his rhetorical “balancing act” during a time of significant civil unrest. Childers explicates Roosevelt’s rhetorical deployment of such tropes as individual character and successful assimilation; he argues that while Roosevelt ultimately neither endorsed nor vilified immigrants, and although he distinguished immigrants’ fitness for citizenship from their religion and language, his rhetorical presentation of American values effectively dissolved the popular notion that nationality constituted the major difference between citizens and noncitizens. The realization of Roosevelt’s American idealism,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 13

8/5/15 2:04 PM

14

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

Childers explains, conflated the administration of citizenship with the arbitration of individual character. Alessandra B. Von Burg provides a theoretical framing of memory, particularly the rhetorical utility of memory for managing immigration conflicts innovatively. She advocates a model that transcends the citizen/noncitizen binary: the Where Are You From? Project, a video collection of first-person narratives gathered in a collaboration between Wake Forest University and the North Carolina Humanities Council, reconceptualizes immigration as “stories of mobility.” Turning to this initiative as a case study, Von Burg identifies critical parallels between contemporary and historical immigrants’ stories in order to facilitate peaceful and democratic engagement. Calling attention to the “othering” of immigrants, who live and work among American citizens, Von Burg suggests strategies for a “renovation” of negative classifications to overcome the systematic marginalization of immigrants. Part 4, “Affect and Media Imagery,” is dedicated to the production and circulation of immigration in popular culture. The authors concentrate primarily on film and television, analyzing the ways in which mainstream media supply the public with certain interpretive frameworks and scripts for social action, simultaneously constraining the potential for alternative frameworks and actions. A central concern in part 4 is the function of mediated emotion and affect. As the authors note, the rhetorical construction, or representation, of immigrants is designed to elicit strong emotions in target audiences. Furthermore, the essays examine the media’s capacity to enable the public’s imagination, and identify imagination, or reimagination, as a rhetorical strategy for political change. Michael Lechuga situates Hollywood’s cinematic portrayals of alien others in the Burkean poetic categories of the epic, tragic, comic, satirical, and burlesque; further, drawing on the frames of acceptance and rejection, he analyzes the dialectical relationship implied analogously between the extraterrestrial and the Mexican immigrant, and the US solider and the patriotic citizen and nation-state, respectively. Building on the rhetorical notion of the border, consisting of the complexities of borderlands and border identities, Lechuga instructively takes up D. Robert DeChaine’s important program, and explicates the implications of popular media rhetorics for public militaristic orientations toward immigration. He advocates reconceiving this liminal space, focusing on its possibilities for performing disidentification. J. David Cisneros assesses possibilities for challenging the emotionally and affectively charged immigration debate, analyzing “Immigration,” an episode of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 14

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

15

30 Days, a Morgan Spurlock reality TV series that aired from 2005 to 2008. By examining a text that shifts what he calls an “emotional habitus” that structures public discourse on immigration from fear and anger to compassion and friendship, he indicates that moving beyond reductive anti-immigrant sentiment is possible. Significantly, however, Cisneros also demonstrates that widely circulating attitudes about the program impeded its progressive or subversive potential, entrenching dominant emotions and affects. The disruptive potential, Cisneros argues, was compromised by the “stickiness” of the familiar mode of public feeling that underlies immigration conflicts.

Definitions and Hopes As an immigrant, you are defined by your movement from one place to another. This, of course, is a rhetorical process with much at stake. Indeed, you are less defined by your movement than constructed by the cultural circumstances of your departure and arrival. Are you a refugee, migrant laborer, or highly skilled visiting worker? Are you assimilating with enthusiasm, embracing new ways of life in the land of opportunity? Are you participating in the subcultures of urban or rural immigrant enclaves? Who were you when you left whatever it was that you left, and who are you now? And what do your answers to these questions mean for you, for me, and for us? In Border Rhetorics, a collection of important essays already cited above several times, D. Robert DeChaine focuses on how, “in the context of the U.S. nation-state, borders and border symbolism are formative in shaping public understandings of citizenship and identity.” DeChaine orients his project in relation to literature on immigration and borders by noting, first, that “a rhetorical border studies offers scholars, critics, and activists useful strategies for investigating the array of linguistic, visual, and aural resources through which understandings of citizenship, national identity, belonging, and otherness are publicly negotiated,” and, second, that “common among all of the contributors’ engagements is our decisive turn from borders to bordering—a reorientation in analysis from descriptive accounts of status forms to critical interrogations of dynamic, power-laden enactments.” With the present volume, in which several of the same scholars appear, we hope to enact and extend DeChaine’s vision of what a rhetorical analysis might contribute to the ongoing study of immigration. We hope, moreover, to respond to his call for an ethico-political scholarly stance. As he notes in the afterword to the present volume, “studying immigration and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 15

8/5/15 2:04 PM

16

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

border rhetorics involves, or should involve, an orientation toward a horizon of social justice, a motivation that presses beyond mere explanation to a critical engagement with discourses of power.”

note s 1. Amanda Sakuma, “Influx of Unaccompanied Child Migrants Exposes Strained System,” MSNBC, June 3, 2014, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/child-immigrants-strained-system. 2. Joel Millman and Miriam Jordan, “Flow of Unaccompanied Minors Tests U.S. Immigration Agencies,” Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100 01424052702303743604579351143226055538; Julia Preston, “U.S. Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone,” New York Times, May 16, 2014, http://www.nytimes .com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up-crisis-shelter-as-children-flow-across-border-alone.html. 3. US Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children,” http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children, accessed September 5, 2014. 4. UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency, “Children on the Run,” http://unhcrwashington .org/children/background-materials, accessed September 5, 2014. 5. Vanessa B. Beasley, Who Belongs in America? Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006); J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11 (2008): 569–601; Anne Demo, “Sovereignty Discourse and Contemporary Immigration Politics,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 91 (2005): 291–311; Lisa A. Flores, “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87; E. Johanna Hartelius, “Face-ing Immigration: Prosopopeia and the ‘Muslim-Arab-Middle Eastern’ Other,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43 (2013): 311–34; Hugh Mehan, “The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation,” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70; Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). 6. Hector Amaya, “Performing Acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o Immigrant Self,” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 194–212; Bernadette Marie Calafell, “Disrupting the Dichotomy: ‘Yo Soy Chicana/o?’ in the New Latina/o South,” Communication Review 7 (2004): 175–204; Karma R. Chávez, “Exploring the Defeat of Arizona’s Marriage Amendment and the Specter of the Immigrant as Queer,” Southern Communication Journal 74 (2009): 314–24; Karma R. Chávez, “Border (In)Securities: Normative and Differential Belonging in LGBTQ and Immigrant Rights Discourse,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7 (2010): 136–55; Karma R. Chávez, “Counter-Public Enclaves and Understanding the Function of Rhetoric in Social Movement Coalition-Building,” Communication Quarterly 59 (2011): 1–18; Fernando P. Delgado, “Chicano Ideology Revisited: Rap Music and the (Re)articulation of Chicanismo,” Western Journal of Communication 62 (1998): 95–113; Lisa A. Flores, “Creating Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft a Homeland,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 142–56; Lisa A. Flores and Mary Ann Villarreal, “Mobilizing for National Inclusion: The Discursivity of Whiteness Among Texas Mexicans’ Arguments for Desegregation,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 86–100; Michelle A. Holling, “A Dispensational Rhetoric in ‘The Mexican Question in the Southwest,’ ” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 65–85; Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette Marie Calafell, “Identities on Stage and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 16

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

17

Staging Identities: ChicanoBrujo Performances as Emancipatory Practices,” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 58–83. 7. Lisa A. Flores and Marouf A. Hasian Jr., “Returning to Aztlán and La Raza: Political Communication and the Vernacular Construction of Chicano/a Nationalism,” in International and Intercultural Communication, Annual Volume XX: Politics, Communication, and Culture, ed. Alberto Gonzalez and Dolores V. Tanno (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997), 186–203; Richard D. Pineda and Stacey K. Sowards, “Flag Waving as Visual Argument: 2006 Immigration Demonstrations and Cultural Citizenship,” Argumentation and Advocacy 43 (2007): 164–74. 8. See works cited above and J. David Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 133–50; Monisha Das Gupta, Unruly Immigrants (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006); Toby Miller, “The Ragpicker-Citizen,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 213–26. 9. Beth Baker-Cristales, “Mediated Resistance: The Construction of Neoliberal Citizenship in the Immigrant Rights Movement,” Latino Studies 7 (2009): 60–82; Michelle A. Holling, “Forming Oppositional Social Concord to California’s Proposition 187 and Squelching Social Discord in the Vernacular Space of CHICLE,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3 (2006): 202–22; Bernadette Marie Calafell and Fernando P. Delgado, “Reading Latina/o Images: Interrogating Americanos,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (2004): 1–21; Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002); Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse,” Communication Monographs 62 (1995): 20–46. 10. Claudia A. Anguiano and Karma R. Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream,” in Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz?, ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011), 81–99; Karma R. Chávez, Queer Migration Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013). Beyond rhetorical studies, see also René Galindo, “Undocumented and Unafraid: The DREAM Act 5 and the Public Disclosure of Undocumented Status as a Political Act,” Urban Review 44, no. 5 (2012): 589–611; Hinda Seif, “ ‘Wise Up!’ Undocumented Latino Youth, Mexican-American Legislators, and the Struggle for Higher Education Access,” Latino Studies 2 (2004): 210–30; Hinda Seif, “ ‘Unapologetic and Unafraid’: Immigrant Youth Come Out from the Shadows,” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 134 (2011): 59–75. 11. Texas Insider, “Cong. Michael McCaul Pushing Border Security Bill as Chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee,” May 24, 2013, http://www.texasinsider.org/ michael-mccaul-chairman-of-the-u-s-house-homeland-security-committee/. 12. Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island Foundation, “The Immigrant Experience,” http://www .ellisisland.org/Immexp/index.asp. 13. In her thoughtful analysis of coalitional politics, Karma Chávez describes how the DREAM movement uses queer activism as a resource, including the rhetorical tactics of the “coming-out” logos. Chávez, Queer Migration Politics, 80–81. She juxtaposes the coming-out metaphors of sexuality (the closet) and legal status (the shadows). 14. Lloyd Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 4. 15. Barry Brummett, “A Eulogy for Epistemic Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 69–72; Richard A. Cherwitz, “Rhetoric as a Way of Knowing: An Attenuation of the Epistemological Claims of the New Rhetoric,” Southern Speech Communication Journal 42 (1977): 207–19; Richard A. Cherwitz and James Hikins, Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986); Robert L. Scott, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic,” Central States Speech Journal 18 (1967): 9–17; Robert L. Scott, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later,” Central States Speech Journal 27 (1976): 258–66; Robert L. Scott, “Epistemic Rhetoric and Criticism: Where Barry Brummett Goes Wrong,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 300–303.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 17

8/5/15 2:04 PM

18

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

16. See Walter R. Fisher, “Narration as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22. 17. Diane Davis, Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreigner Relations (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 2 (emphasis in original). 18. Readers may gain a useful and up-to-date introduction to the extensive literature on American immigration from Richard Alba and Victor Nee, Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003); Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999); Tamar Jacoby, Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means to Be American (New York: Basic Books, 2004); Juan F. Perea, Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the AntiImmigrant Impulse in the United States (New York: New York University Press, 1996); Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbaut, Immigrant America: A Portrait (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996); Rubén G. Rumbaut and Alejandro Portes, Immigrants in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). 19. This myth of origin in its component parts is instructively addressed and deconstructed by Roger Daniels, drawing on nineteenth-century social scientist E. G. Ravenstein’s “laws of migration.” Daniels, Coming to America, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002). Daniels notes that in the public mind, the following myths about historical and present-day US immigration are taken for granted: that most immigrants come seeking liberty from religious or political persecution; that most immigrants are among the poorest in their home countries; and that, according to the “melting pot” ideal, those arriving here blend into one (17). As Daniels demonstrates, these myths, although containing some veracity, do not “square with the actual American experience” (18). 20. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative contains provisions similar to various drafts of the DREAM Act, classifying young undocumented immigrants as a “low priority for deportation.” Persons who qualify may defer deportation for a period of two years in order to complete their education and/or work legally. 21. Norman Binder, J. L. Polinard, and Robert D. Wrinkle, “Mexican American and Anglo Attitudes Toward Immigration Reform: A View from the Border,” Social Science Quarterly 78 (June 1997): 324–37. 22. Regarding mass media representations of the Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Easterners, see Kimberly A. Powell, “Framing Islam: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11,” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 90–112; Melina Trevino, Ali M. Kanso, and Richard Alan Nelson, “Islam Through Editorial Lenses: How American Elite Newspapers Portrayed Muslims Before and After September 11, 2001,” Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 3 (2010): 3–17; M. Mehdi Semati, “Communication, Culture, and the Essentialized Islam,” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 113–26; M. Mehdi Semati, “Islamophobia, Culture, and Race in the Age of Empire,” Cultural Studies 24 (2010): 256–75; M. Mehdi Semati, “Terrorists, Moslems, Fundamentalists, and Other Bad Objects in the Midst of ‘Us,’ ” Journal of International Communication 4 (1997): 30–49; Mary Ann Weston, “Post 9/11 Arab American Coverage Avoids Stereotypes,” Newspaper Research Journal 24 (2003): 92–106. 23. Arizona v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010), 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011), cert granted. 24. When Chief Justice John G. Roberts, at the session’s outset, asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verelli directly, “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profi ling, does it?,” Verelli agreed. Arizona v. United States, 11–182 (2012), 34. 25. The “Gang of Eight” were Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Flake, (R-AZ), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 18

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

19

26. Immigration Policy Center, “An Unlikely Couple: The Similar Approaches to Border Enforcement in H.R. 1417 and S. 744,” July 2013, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/ unlikely-couple-similar-approaches-border-enforcement-hr-1417-and-s-744. 27. DeChaine, Border Rhetorics. 28. Ibid., 2. 29. Ibid., 5. 30. Ibid., 13.

bibl io gr a ph y Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Amaya, Hector. “Performing Acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o Immigrant Self.” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 194–212. Anguiano, Claudia A., and Karma R. Chávez. “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream.” In Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz?, ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell, 81–99. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. Baker-Cristales, Beth. “Mediated Resistance: The Construction of Neoliberal Citizenship in the Immigrant Rights Movement.” Latino Studies 7 (2009): 60–82. Beasley, Vanessa B. Who Belongs in America? Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. Binder, Norman, J. L. Polinard, and Robert D. Wrinkle. “Mexican American and Anglo Attitudes Toward Immigration Reform: A View from the Border.” Social Science Quarterly 78 (June 1997): 324–37. Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1–14. Brummett, Barry. “A Eulogy for Epistemic Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 69–72. Calafell, Bernadette Marie. “Disrupting the Dichotomy: ‘Yo Soy Chicana/o?’ in the New Latina/o South.” Communication Review 7 (2004): 175–204. Calafell, Bernadette Marie, and Fernando P. Delgado. “Reading Latina/o Images: Interrogating Americanos.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (2004): 1–21. Chávez, Karma R. “Border (In)Securities: Normative and Differential Belonging in LGBTQ and Immigrant Rights Discourse.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7 (2010): 136–55. ———. “Counter-Public Enclaves and Understanding the Function of Rhetoric in Social Movement Coalition-Building.” Communication Quarterly 59 (2011): 1–18. ———. “Exploring the Defeat of Arizona’s Marriage Amendment and the Specter of the Immigrant as Queer.” Southern Communication Journal 74 (2009): 314–24. ———. Queer Migration Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013. Cherwitz, Richard A. “Rhetoric as a Way of Knowing: An Attenuation of the Epistemological Claims of the New Rhetoric.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 42 (1977): 207–19. Cherwitz, Richard A., and James Hikins. Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11 (2008): 569–601. ———. “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 133–50. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Daniels, Roger. Coming to America. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Perennial, 2002.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 19

8/5/15 2:04 PM

20

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

Das Gupta, Monisha. Unruly Immigrants. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. Davis, Diane. Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreigner Relations. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. DeChaine, D. Robert, ed. Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Delgado, Fernando P. “Chicano Ideology Revisited: Rap Music and the (Re)articulation of Chicanismo.” Western Journal of Communication 62 (1998): 95–113. Demo, Anne Teresa. “Sovereignty Discourse and Contemporary Immigration Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 91 (2005): 291–311. Fisher, Walter R. “Narration as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22. Flores, Lisa A. “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87. ———. “Creating Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft a Homeland.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 142–56. Flores, Lisa A., and Marouf A. Hasian Jr. “Returning to Aztlán and La Raza: Political Communication and the Vernacular Construction of Chicano/a Nationalism.” In International and Intercultural Communication, Annual Volume XX: Politics, Communication, and Culture, ed. Alberto Gonzalez and Dolores V. Tanno, 186–203. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. Flores, Lisa A., and Mary Ann Villarreal. “Mobilizing for National Inclusion: The Discursivity of Whiteness Among Texas Mexicans’ Arguments for Desegregation.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 86–100. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Galindo, René. “Undocumented and Unafraid: The DREAM Act 5 and the Public Disclosure of Undocumented Status as a Political Act.” Urban Review 44, no. 5 (2012): 589–611. Hartelius, E. Johanna. “Face-ing Immigration: Prosopopeia and the ‘Muslim-Arab-Middle Eastern’ Other.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43 (2013): 311–34. Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. Holling, Michelle A. “A Dispensational Rhetoric in ‘The Mexican Question in the Southwest.’ ” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 65–85. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. ———. “Forming Oppositional Social Concord to California’s Proposition 187 and Squelching Social Discord in the Vernacular Space of CHICLE.” Communication and Critical/ Cultural Studies 3 (2006): 202–22. Holling, Michelle A., and Bernadette Marie Calafell. “Identities on Stage and Staging Identities: ChicanoBrujo Performances as Emancipatory Practices.” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 58–83. Immigration Policy Center. “An Unlikely Couple: The Similar Approaches to Border Enforcement in H.R. 1417 and S.744.” July 2013. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/ unlikely-couple-similar-approaches-border-enforcement-hr-1417-and-s-744. Jacoby, Tamar. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means to Be American. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Mehan, Hugh. “The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation.” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70. Miller, Toby. “The Ragpicker-Citizen.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the USMexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 213–26. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 20

8/5/15 2:04 PM

introduction

|

21

Millman, Joel, and Miriam Jordan. “Flow of Unaccompanied Minors Tests U.S. Immigration Agencies.” Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB10001424052702303743604579351143226055538. Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse.” Communication Monographs 62 (1995): 20–46. ———. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Perea, Juan F. Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Pineda, Richard D., and Stacey K. Sowards. “Flag Waving as Visual Argument: 2006 Immigration Demonstrations and Cultural Citizenship.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43 (2007): 164–74. Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996. Powell, Kimberly A. “Framing Islam: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11.” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 90–112. Preston, Julia. “U.S. Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone.” New York Times, May 16, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up -crisis-shelter-as-children-flow-across-border-alone.html. Rumbaut, Rubén G., and Alejandro Portes. Immigrants in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Sakuma, Amanda. “Influx of Unaccompanied Child Migrants Exposes Strained System.” MSNBC, June 3, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/child-immigrants-strained -system. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Scott, Robert L. “Epistemic Rhetoric and Criticism: Where Barry Brummett Goes Wrong.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 300–303. ———. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.” Central States Speech Journal 18 (1967): 9–17. ———. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later.” Central States Speech Journal 27 (1976): 258–66. Seif, Hinda. “‘Unapologetic and Unafraid’: Immigrant Youth Come Out from the Shadows.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 134 (2011): 59–75. ———. “ ‘Wise Up!’ Undocumented Latino Youth, Mexican-American Legislators, and the Struggle for Higher Education Access.” Latino Studies 2 (2004): 210–30. Semati, M. Mehdi. “Communication, Culture, and the Essentialized Islam.” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 113–26. ———. “Islamophobia, Culture, and Race in the Age of Empire.” Cultural Studies 24 (2010): 256–75. ———. “Terrorists, Moslems, Fundamentalists, and Other Bad Objects in the Midst of ‘Us.’ ” Journal of International Communication 4 (1997): 30–49. Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. “The Immigrant Experience.” http://www .ellisisland.org/Immexp/index.asp. Texas Insider. “Cong. Michael McCaul Pushing Border Security Bill as Chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee,” May 24, 2013. http://www.texasinsider.org/ michael-mccaul-chairman-of-the-u-s-house-homeland-security-committee/. Tichenor, Daniel J. Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Trevino, Melina, Ali M. Kanso, and Richard Alan Nelson. “Islam Through Editorial Lenses: How American Elite Newspapers Portrayed Muslims Before and After September 11, 2001.” Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 3 (2010): 3–17.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 21

8/5/15 2:04 PM

22

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency. “Children on the Run.” http://unhcrwashington.org/ children/background-materials. Accessed September 5, 2014. US Customs and Border Protection. “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children.” http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied- children. Accessed September 5, 2014. Weston, Mary Ann. “Post 9/11 Arab American Coverage Avoids Stereotypes.” Newspaper Research Journal 24 (2003): 92–106.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 22

8/5/15 2:04 PM

1

facing ghosts, god, and nature Affect, Naturalization, and the “No Más Cruces” Border Campaign Terence Check and Christine Jasken

In 2004, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched a public service campaign aimed at communicating to undocumented migrants and their families the fatal risk involved in crossing the US-Mexico border. Each advertisement in the campaign featured the tagline “No Más Cruces en la Frontera,” which translates as both “no more crossing the border” and “no more (cemetery) crosses on the border,” presenting migrants and their families with both a command not to cross and a reference to the wooden crosses often placed in locations along the border where migrants have died. The CBP has spent about $1.1 million annually to fund the ongoing campaign, placing advertisements in domestic markets, eight Mexican states, and Guatemala. Geographically, the agency has focused its efforts on rural regions south of Mexico City and large American cities home to recent immigrants who help to finance border-crossing trips for relatives and friends. With these advertisements, CBP appeals directly to undocumented migrants with sympathetic portrayals of hope and loss, a point its creators emphasize. “We are emotionally understanding of the plight of these human beings,” said Jimmy Learned, the president of Elevación, the ad agency behind the campaign. “And I think that’s a very important component, too. This is not about laws or anything like that. It’s really more humanitarian and education[al].” The advertisements in the “No Más Cruces” campaign are noteworthy for their use of emotional and affective associations, especially given the ad agency’s desire to create evocative and humanizing messages. If affect is understood as “direct sensory experiences (of color, light, sound, movement, rhythm, and texture), along with the feelings, moods, emotions, and/or passions they elicit,” then it is important to examine these messages as “orienting” devices that shape “the political contours of our social imaginaries.” Much related work on

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 25

8/5/15 2:04 PM

26

|

activism and public campaigns

immigration rhetorics has examined the public framing and stereotyping of undocumented migrants as lawbreakers, the scapegoating tactics society uses to construct them as enemies, and the discourses that explicitly “cast alienized subjects as abject, inassimilable outsiders to the American community.” Furthermore, rhetoricians have begun the important work of analyzing how “accretions of affect and meaning influence public understandings, political decisions, and societal interactions regarding immigration and citizenship.” In contrast, a paucity of scholarship examines the affective circulation of messages intended to convey sympathetic portrayals of immigrants, as well as studies of government-sponsored rhetoric directed at undocumented migrants. Part of a “softer, lesser-known campaign” to dissuade migrants from crossing the border using visceral and affective impulses, the “No Más Cruces” advertisements enact a message that gets “cemented into systems of thought and feeling.” From the perspective of the ads’ creators, traditional efforts at deterrence, including appeals to the fear of being apprehended, would not resonate with the intended audience. As Pablo Izquierdo, co-founder of Elevación, put it, “You can not do a campaign against the migrant directly, you can’t insult them, they have their honor and their dignity and you have to respect their decisions.” Armed with messages that draw instead upon an array of emotions (fear, devotion, love, regret, remorse, and anguish) that center on the immigrant body, the advertisements work “as incipient attitudes, as energies, intensities, and sensations that function as the first step towards an evolving attitude.” In this essay, we examine the rhetorical features of three key advertisements released at the early stages of CBP’s “No Más Cruces” campaign, arguing that they individualize blame for border deaths on migrants and their families. Specifically, the ads reify the prevailing logics of immigration discourse in three ways. First, the presence of ghosts in one of the spots functions affectively to give authority to the dead, providing them with a special mission to warn migrants against crossing the border. Second, the ads utilize religious symbolism and appeals to God, often with intense emotional utterances that normalize migrant experiences as fated. Third, the ads naturalize the doomed outcome of undocumented immigration, given the physical barriers imposed upon migrants by desert environments. By using the terms “naturalize” and “naturalization,” we do not mean the legal and political process of extending to aliens the rights and privileges of citizenship, but rather the rhetorical process of bolstering social norms “by asserting that it is dictated by nature and is therefore either irrevocable or optimal or both.” Appeals to nature or to the “natural way” are often advanced without rebuttal in a culture that accepts

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 26

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

27

such claims as taken for granted. A critique of naturalization examines how rhetors use appeals to nature as a tool of power that places such arguments “in an arena of truth, inevitability, beyond the reach of social criticism or democratic dialogue.” Although critics have scrutinized rhetorical naturalization in environmental messages, almost nothing has been published about the interaction between immigration discourses and portrayals of nature. By examining this interaction, as well as the appeals that the advertisements make to the authority of God and the supernatural, this essay contributes to the growing scholarship on affect and emotion in immigration discourses. We argue that the advertisements in the “No Más Cruces” campaign deny migrant agency by rendering border deaths an inevitable and irrevocable consequence of the behavior of undocumented immigrants and their families, exculpating the US government from blame. We develop this argument by describing the background of the campaign, followed by an analysis of the advertisements.

Deterring Crossers: The Beginnings of the Border Patrol Ad Campaign The “No Más Cruces” campaign was not the first time that the US government produced public service announcements (PSAs) meant to deter unauthorized immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) created a series of radio announcements as early as the 1940s, featuring border patrol agents warning potential migrants about the consequences of unauthorized border crossings. These were later supplanted by short films shown to undocumented migrants after officials had apprehended and detained them. By the 1990s, however, most resources went into enforcement strategies designed to thwart undocumented migrants’ attempts to cross the border through urban corridors. Border officials implemented this “concentrated border enforcement strategy” in El Paso in 1993, with Operation Hold the Line. The government followed with Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego in 1994, Operation Safeguard in Nogales, Arizona, in 1995, and Operation Rio Grande in southeast Texas in 1997. Since 70 to 80 percent of undocumented immigrants from Mexico crossed the border in one of these four areas, the objective was to reroute migrants toward more remote areas of the southwestern border. Officials believed that the “new, more environmentally treacherous crossing points in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas” would deter undocumented migrants. According to Raquel Rubio-Goldsmith, professor

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 27

8/5/15 2:04 PM

28

|

activism and public campaigns

of Mexican-American studies at Arizona State University, the idea was, “If you cross into an urban area, you can find a way of making it. If you have to cross through these rural areas, you’re taking a big chance.” Instead of dissuading undocumented migrants from crossing the border, the new enforcement policies resulted in the death of many migrants from exposure to the desert heat. Between 1995 and 2004, more people perished at the border than in the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, a consequence of the extreme weather conditions that undocumented migrants faced when crossing the border between May and August. These “hot months” accounted for as many as 80 percent of border deaths; of the total border deaths, 75 percent were attributed to a desolate stretch of border frontier in the Arizona desert. According to US border officials, in the years prior to the “No Más Cruces” campaign, more than four hundred undocumented migrants died on average each year attempting to cross the border. Those numbers fail to account for all deaths, since many bodies are not recovered by the Border Patrol or the Mexican police. In 1998, CBP developed the Border Safety Initiative, designed to educate undocumented immigrants about the dangers of crossing the border. In the second year of this initiative, the Border Patrol created English- and Spanishlanguage PSAs featuring Jackie Gallegos, a young widow whose husband died of dehydration while trying to cross the California border. This was the first time the agency had used a spokesperson in its advertising who was not a Border Patrol or immigration official; it “marked a compassionate turn in the INS’s rhetorical strategy, from sober warnings to evocative first-person accounts of the impact of these deaths on wives and children.” The advertisements drew attention away from the threat of being apprehended by border officials, and instead highlighted the risk of death faced by undocumented migrants. As Dolores Inés Casillas explains, “The ‘new’ designated opponent was the treacherous dry climate of the desert, with no regard to immigration policy, shifts in immigration law, or the demand for undocumented labor that continued to make these dangerous trails viable options.” In 2004, Congress allocated $3.8 billion to border enforcement, most of which was devoted to surveillance equipment and staffing the growing Border Patrol, concurrently increased to eleven thousand agents. In addition, a significant sum was aimed at psychological deterrence. Agency officials solicited the help of Elevación, a Washington, DC–based ad agency that specializes in reaching Latino markets, to develop a comprehensive media campaign aimed at two audiences: first-time, unauthorized Mexican border crossers, who see

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 28

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

29

the journey as a rite of passage, and their family and friends in Mexico and the United States, who influence their decision to cross and help to finance the trips. To reach these two groups, CBP invested in media channels in both the United States and Mexico. Although CBP sponsored the campaign, the commercials did not identify the agency. As US Border Patrol Assistant Chief Salvador Zamora emphasized, “It’s important not to give any hints that this is a U.S.-sponsored program, because it’s all about credibility.” To enhance the perceived authenticity of the spots, the ad agency filmed the commercials in Mexico with Mexican actors, and incorporated Mexican signs and rituals. In this essay, we focus on three early television commercials that ran as part of the CBP campaign: “Tumbas,” “Funeral,” and “La Carta.”

The Ghosts of “Tumbas” The thirty-second spot “Tumbas” features a graveyard lined with dirt mounds marked with white crosses. At three moments during the advertisement, the camera slows to focus on a particular grave and its cross, while white, ghostly text fades in and then out, accompanied by voiceovers, in Spanish, of the “dead.” Each voice gives a reason for crossing: First male voiceover: I crossed for the money. Female voiceover: I crossed to follow. Second male voiceover: Because they make it look easy. While the first two voiceovers correspond with images of simple white crosses, the final gravesite features a fresh mound of dirt. Viewers see an aerial shot of the rows of graves, and a male announcer proclaims, “There are many reasons to cross the border. None are worth your life.” As the cemetery scene fades out and the music ends, the tagline “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” fills the center of the screen. Allowing the dead to speak to the living, the advertisements draw upon supernatural authority to advance their warning. In Mexico, and among Mexican Americans, there is an “understanding of the interconnectedness of the material and spiritual dimensions of reality,” and the campaign utilizes these beliefs as a source of ethos. In Mexican culture, with traditions such as the Via Crucis and Día de los Muertos, special attention is given to the role of deceased ancestors in the affairs of the living. In an essay on the symbolism of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 29

8/5/15 2:04 PM

30

|

activism and public campaigns

Mexican Americans’ religious practices, Roberto S. Goizueta argues, “Events and characters that to an outsider may appear as ‘magical’ or ‘fantastic,’ are to the Mexican American merely one more aspect of everyday existence, one more dimension of reality, a reality rich and diverse enough to encompass the magical as well as the mundane, the ethereal as well as the material.” The ad’s creator cites Juan Rulfo’s novel Pedro Páramo as the source of inspiration for the “Tumbas” spot. Considered one of the masterpieces of Latin American literature, Pedro Páramo tells the story of a man’s journey to a haunted Mexican village replete with ethereal spirits. After promising his mother that he will return to her hometown and visit his estranged father, the protagonist, Juan Preciado, guides readers into the village of Comala. He encounters people who begin to tell the story of his father, Pedro Páramo, a man who controlled his town through greed, bribery, and revenge. Together, Juan and the reader learn of the fate of Pedro Páramo and the misdeeds that entrapped the people of Comala. On this journey, the lines between life and death are blurred as readers begin to realize that the people whom Juan encounters are in fact ghosts stuck in a purgatory carved by Pedro’s transgressions. As the narrative continues, readers also realize that Juan has himself become a ghost. The language and imagery used by Rulfo paint a picture similar to that presented in “Tumbas.” Rulfo provokes the senses to transmit a feeling of ill ease by describing leaves rustling through barren trees, characters who mysteriously appear and disappear, and the murmuring of voices. One ghost declares, “This town is filled with echoes. It’s like they were trapped behind the walls, or beneath the cobblestones. When you walk you feel like someone’s behind you, stepping in your footsteps. You hear rustlings. And people laughing. Laughter that sounds used up. And voices worn away by the years.” Along with a host of ghostly voices, Rulfo employs the voice of Juan Preciado’s deceased mother, who fondly and vividly describes the sights, sounds, and smells of her beloved town. Her descriptions of “the pure murmuring of life” that once characterized Comala are interspersed throughout the ghostly telling of the town’s fate, and contribute to the haunting feeling of the novel. The ghosts of Comala serve as storytellers in the novel. Their voices inform Juan of the past, and their memories pull readers into flashbacks that show this past unfolding. These narrative tactics allow Rulfo to tell the story from the end to the beginning. While the fate of Comala is clear in the first few pages, it is not until the final pages that readers learn of the day when Pedro, moments before his own death, vindictively proclaims his plan to leave the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 30

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

31

townspeople to starve. In the end, the ghosts have pulled Juan into their fate. Digging up the story of his father, Juan has dug his own grave. According to Danny J. Anderson, Juan Preciado “guides readers into the ghost story as he encounters the lost souls of Comala, sees apparitions, hears voices, and eventually suspects that he too is dead. We see through Juan’s eyes and hear with his ears the voices of those buried in the cemetery.” The reverberations of Preciado’s voice are not unlike the phantasms in the “Tumbas” spot. Pedro Páramo creates the “experience of being haunted,” which Avery F. Gordon describes as “a very particular way of knowing what has happened or is happening. Being haunted draws us affectively, sometimes against our will and always a bit magically, into the structure of feeling of a reality we come to experience, not as cold knowledge, but as transformative recognition.” Similarly, audiences are haunted in “Tumbas” by disembodied spirits that generate “intensities that pass body to body (human, nonhuman, part-body, and otherwise), in those resonances that circulate about, between, and sometimes stick to bodies and worlds, and in the very passages or variations between these intensities and resonances themselves.” People don’t see ghosts; they experience them. The ghosts in the “Tumbas” spot generate affective power in two ways: they have a discomposing presence that agitates the emotions, and their supernatural authority imbues them with the otherworldly potency to deliver forewarnings to, and render judgments upon, the living. Ghosts are intrusions into material space, and an encounter with them can be disconcerting and upsetting (or, depending on the purpose of the visitation, comforting and soothing). Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites contend that a ghost is “an afterimage, a specter that should disappear but refuses to go away, and whose very presence troubles the modern present and its logic of linear time.” While the ghosts of “Tumbas” are mediated, they still generate “the intensity that allows us to feel,” particularly in a culture that holds “a worldview in which there is no clear separation between the spiritual and material realms. The deceased person is really present and participating in every aspect of our everyday lives.” In a cultural paradigm that respects ghosts as messengers, their ability to return “at the other’s time of need to forewarn of imminent danger” is significant. In “Tumbas,” viewers see apparitional mists next to selected tombstones, each voicing the dead person’s justification for crossing the border. The moving image stalls next to three gravesites, where disembodied voices speak, as if communicating from the other side. Belief in communication with the deceased is widespread in contemporary society, with more than 40 percent of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 31

8/5/15 2:04 PM

32

|

activism and public campaigns

Americans believing they have had some form of paranormal contact with the dead. Spiritualism, or the belief that people are able to communicate with the dead—or the dead with the living—is widely depicted in mainstream popular culture. In addition, many Mexicans participate in folk healing practices known as curanderismo, which include contact with the spirit world. In “Tumbas,” viewers are asked not only to respect the wisdom and authority of the dead but to recognize their murmurings as an enthymematic plea not to cross the border. Drawing as it does on a syncretic blending of religious and popular beliefs about the appearance and behavior of disembodied phantoms, the “Tumbas” spot is a depiction of espiritisma, or the belief that spirits can alter human behavior. The spot may resonate because the discarnate entities are offering purposeful advice backed by the authority of their experiences. The advice that the ghosts of “Tumbas” dispense, however, is directed at undocumented migrants, and not at those responsible for creating the conditions that cause desert deaths. Given popular notions that vengeful spirits can return to haunt those who have wronged them, ghosts have the potential to serve as incorporeal agents of social criticism. That possibility, however, is unexplored in the advertisement.

The Authority of God in “Funeral” Another thirty-second spot, “Funeral,” begins with images of children playing in the streets of a village and the sounds of a church bell and a rattlesnake. The scene moves to a row of men carrying a casket. The image focuses on the face of one man in particular; as a flute begins to play, a man’s voice narrates: The desert sun had burned us to the brain. The cold of the night penetrated our bones. One day I couldn’t continue any farther. My brother told me not to give up; That he would carry me on his shoulders. I didn’t want to. Now I am the one who carries my brother on my shoulders. Viewers see women wailing behind the casket and an older woman crossing herself. Before the commercial ends, the pallbearer has the spotlight again, and the framed photo he is holding becomes more visible. After the man turns

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 32

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

33

to kiss the casket, a woman looks down from a balcony—then we get an aerial view of the procession and the “No Más Cruces” tagline on the bottom left of the screen. The voice of the male announcer brings the commercial to its finish: “Before you cross the border, remember, it is also manly to turn back.” The “Funeral” spot draws affectively upon religious symbolism to convey its moral about the dangers of crossing the border. Religion has always been “deeply embedded in Mexican cultural consciousness,” with the majority of its citizens identifying themselves as Catholic.A large number (80 to 90 percent) of Mexican Americans in the United States are Catholic. Compared to the dominant US culture, Mexicans “generally value belonging over personal achievement,” and as a result community and family are important sources of ethos and self-identity. In the spot, visual signifiers of religion are prominent, affectively attaching migrants to community and place. The emotions generated in the advertisement “do things, and they align individuals with communities—or bodily space with social space—through the very intensity of their attachments.” The display of anguish in the advertisement is a lament, an improvised oral performance expressing distress and grief, often directed in protest of God. Catholic religious beliefs heavily influence Latino death rituals, with women expressing grief by crying openly. Lament begins as an oral protest, typically with pharyngeal constriction and incoherent groaning, that communicates bereavement. Richard A. Hughes argues, “The varieties of sound make lament polyphonic and susceptible to differing interpretations. Generally speaking, the polyphonic cries of lament express anguish, fear, anxiety, and terror.” Since affect is conceptualized as “a gradient of bodily capacity,” the lament of the women can be understood as an affective performance. The performances are typically staged with others in social settings, demonstrating how “bodies play an important role in lamentation.” Overcome by emotion, lamenters can throw their bodies to the ground, thrust their arms around each other, and use their tears and the melody of their crying voices as a response to the anguish of loss. The “Funeral” advertisement also prominently displays religious artifacts such as the cross. The role of immanence, or the ability of the sacred to be contained within physical objects or symbols, has a long-standing tradition in Mexico. In particular, the cross has “an important place in Mexican popular piety” as a “symbol of hope and the foundation of all happiness.” Owing to its status as a recognizable symbol, the cross has a unifying effect in Mexican culture. In the “Funeral” spot, cross symbols are given special prominence.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 33

8/5/15 2:04 PM

34

|

activism and public campaigns

The cross dominates the logo itself, with the “t” of “Frontera” taking the form of a green cross, which stands out against the tagline’s black-and-white capitalized lettering. In the funeral procession depicted in the advertisement, crosses are conspicuous: one scene shows an old man carrying a white cross; another shows a cross-shaped floral arrangement on top of a casket. At times, the visual references are subtle, as in the frame where a girl extends her arms across a doorway, forming her body into a cross, or when an aerial view geometrically displays crosses formed by the vertical line of the casket and the horizontal lines of the sidewalk. The cross symbolizes the death of a person and asks for “prayers from those who see it.” Crosses mark the burial rituals that allow observers to validate their communities’ way of life. In the commercial, the proliferation of crosses pulls viewers back to their Mexican roots in order to dissuade them from crossing the border.

The Authority of Nature in “La Carta” The third advertisement, a sixty-second spot titled “La Carta,” depicts the tragic death of a young migrant who succumbs to the desert heat. The victim also serves as the narrator for the spot, reading aloud a letter he has written to his uncle prior to his journey. The scenes shift between the young man writing the letter and talking with his mother, and the uncle reading the letter. The voiceover states: Thank you, Uncle, for all that you have done for me. I am going to work hard to pay you back little by little. Mom keeps asking me why I’m leaving if I already have everything I need here. But if so many have gone already, why not me? Tomorrow I’m going to the border to meet the man that you recommended I cross with. Thank you again. I wouldn’t have been able to do it without your help. See you in two weeks. A soft violin and harp play, until a slow but pronounced drumbeat and a snakelike rattle intensify in the background. The mother is shown blessing her son with the sign of the cross, and then touching a pendant around the young

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 34

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

35

man’s neck. Viewers see a scene of a desert, barren but for a few shrubs. The young man gives his mother a hug and walks away, as she looks worriedly after him. Cutting back to the uncle, who puts the letter down and looks up with a pained expression, the screen goes dark for a moment before focusing on the young man’s blank stare. Viewers see the cracked earth and the nephew’s shoe, and realize that he is lying dead on the desert ground. In the last image, viewers see an aerial view of the dead body in the vast desert. The migrant’s fate is naturalized in at least two ways in this commercial. First, he is the victim of an inhospitable natural landscape, a desert wilderness that delineates political boundaries. Although “the geography of the world is not a product of nature but a product of histories of struggle between competing authorities over the power to organize, occupy, and administer space,” the commercial suggests otherwise, depicting nature as a force that imparts legitimacy to borders. In particular, desert landscapes have a long-standing biblical tradition as “places on the margins of civilization where it is all too easy to lose oneself in moral confusion and despair.” The desert was the site in which Moses led his people for forty years, nearly losing them to paganism. It is also the place where Christ confronted the devil and resisted his temptations. In cultural and religious terms, deserts are places of desolation, where the protections of faith are at their weakest. Although wilderness can produce affective awe and a sense of insignificance in the presence of God’s works, to those who risk bodily harm by venturing there it can be a source of revulsion and dread. As late as the eighteenth century, the connotations associated with wilderness “were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most likely to feel in its presence was ‘bewilderment’—or terror.” According to William Cronon, the wilderness “was a place to which one came only against one’s will, and always in fear and trembling.” The advertisement naturalizes the fate of the undocumented immigrant in a second way by suggesting that he is the victim of God’s will, despite the protections bestowed upon him. In some Mexican and Mexican American communities, there is a belief that illness and other maladies are a punishment from God. Individuals relinquish their lives to God, conceding that they have “little control over their lives and must put their trust in God to keep them safe.” Roberto S. Goizueta points out that “personal identity is not so much achieved through an individual’s choices and decisions as it is received from one’s family, one’s community, and, above all, from God.” Thus deserts and other inhospitable landscapes and natural hazards are seen as the work of a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 35

8/5/15 2:04 PM

36

|

activism and public campaigns

vengeful God, and nature as the “manifestation of divine punishment.” Those who purposely pursue such frontiers do so at the risk of placing themselves at the mercy of the devil or a punitive God. According to the enthymeme generated in the advertisement, nature is a force against which humans strive in vain, despite protections given by traditional religious practices and symbols, including several seen in the flashback scenes as the uncle reads the letter. Within Hispanic culture, notes Rosa María Icaza, people use the cross to bless themselves and others, especially parent to child: “It is customary that the children ask for their parents’ blessing not only during their childhood, but during all their lives. The parents make the sign of the cross on their children.” In “La Carta,” viewers see the mother making the sign of the cross on her son prior to his departure. As Icaza notes, Mexicans believe that the parental blessing has “great efficacy.” In addition, the young man in this scene is wearing a pendant with the symbols of the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is significant not only as a marker of the family’s Catholic faith but because these symbols contain sacred power, and in Mexican culture are “in their essence truly the body and blood of Christ.” In Mexican society, border crossings are “represented both as baptisms and as dangerous passages that require divine intervention and protection,” so many migrants use religious symbols to shield themselves from danger. But despite the protection afforded by the cross and Eucharist symbols, the undocumented migrant in “La Carta” succumbs to the desert heat, and his uncle can only read the letter in anguish knowing that his nephew is dead. The advertisement inverts assumptions about the immunity provided by religious practices and symbols, suggesting that undocumented migrants are powerless in the face of God’s authority and divine law, which is conflated with geopolitical law.

Conclusion Collectively, the advertisements in the “No Más Cruces” campaign utilize discursive, visual, and aural rhetorics to constitute emotional value. In terms of narrative argument, the advertisements present oppositional appeals to invert enthymematic associations that encourage border crossing. For example, “Funeral” concludes by instructing viewers that it is “manly to turn back,” a direct response to prevailing notions of machismo, a “defined sense of honor that is vital to the Hispanic sense of self, self-esteem, and manhood.” Prior to the spot’s inception, Elevación hired college students from Mexican universi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 36

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

37

ties to speak to migrants directly, and from these interviews learned that migrants do not always cross the border for economic reasons, but because some consider the journey as a rite of passage. In response to these findings, border agents realized that they “had to speak to the illegal immigrant on a completely different platform.” Thus the spot exploits a wide range of circulating discourses on border crossing, from the perils of the journey itself to the grief and anguish felt by communities suffering loss. It mobilizes discourses to interrupt enthymematic and gendered assumptions about border crossings. An important feature of the “Funeral” advertisement is the account of the journey as told from the perspective of the surviving brother. His story is similar to a testimonio, a prominent literary genre in Latin America that recounts the experiences of a marginalized group with the intent of communicating unjust political or social circumstances. Testimonial narratives promote “expression of personal experience” with the verisimilitude of lived knowledge, in this instance creating dissociation between appearance (machismo) and reality (death). As part of their rhetorical potency, the ads use visual imagery to convey the difficulties of border crossing and foster identification with migrants. Images of the dry, cracked ground in “La Carta” confirm the hazards of traveling across the desert. The spot closes with an aerial view that emphasizes the insignificance of the dead man in the vast expanse of nature. Since images “present situations with much greater impact than mere words do, and thus can convey human pain, suffering, and loss effectively and forcefully,” the visuals in the advertisement naturalize the fated outcome of the migrant. Further, flashback scenes show the young man with his mother in a modest but respectable home, a scene incongruent with the misery and deprivation that audiences might imagine would compel a migrant to attempt a dangerous journey. The images remind migrants of their obligations to family, a consideration that has “almost universal value in the Hispanic community.” In addition, the sounds in the advertisement have affective power. As with linguistic messages, which tend “to become conventionalized for the sake of more efficient communication, so the musical communication of moods and sentiments tends to become standardized.” While the musical scores in these spots are not complex, they convey meaning that is consistent with the sophisticated visual and discursive readings. For example, in “Tumbas,” the tempo varies as the initial smooth violin melody gives way to a rhythmic staccato, complemented with quick drumbeats and the sound of rustling wind. The variation in the music coincides with the moving images that quicken and slow

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 37

8/5/15 2:04 PM

38

|

activism and public campaigns

while surveying the cemetery, creating a sense of unease and contributing to the feeling of being haunted. In “La Carta,” dissonant sounds communicate irregularity and disturbance, foreshadowing the fate of the undocumented migrant traveler. In each spot, the musical experience “forces an encounter between mind and body, clearing a liminal space that is simultaneously charged with affect and fraught with tension.” After hearing and watching the advertisements at a shelter in Tijuana, one migrant observed, “I get chills just listening.” In contrast to depictions that stigmatize undocumented immigrants, the advertisements offer humanizing portrayals of families coping with the death of loved ones. This has allowed government officials to put a positive spin on the campaign. Kristi Clemens, an assistant commissioner for public affairs for CBP, justifies the advertisements: “We are doing everything possible to warn people against challenging the heat and the laws. We’re not subtle about it. No one wants to see people die.” However, as Sara Ahmed notes, “metonymic slides” occur when the proximity of ideas and figures constructs a resemblance between them. Statements suggesting that migrants avoid the “heat and the laws” function to “restick the words together and constitute their coincidence as more than simply temporal.” Laws become fused with “heat,” naturalizing political decisions. And the “sliding between signs also involves ‘sticking’ signs to bodies”: it is the bodies of Mexican Latino/a immigrants who break the “laws” and “die.” Since its release, the “No Más Cruces” campaign has broadened its message by incorporating a wide variety of media formats. While the early stages of the campaign utilized newspaper, billboard, and television advertisements, more recent efforts include a CD of Mexican folk songs with narratives about the dangers of border crossing. CBP agents have also contacted Mexican and Central American television stations and newspapers, asking for the opportunity to insert stories in local media about the dangers of crossing the border. There are plans to introduce the campaign into the curriculum of selected Mexican schools. Skeptics express concern that these efforts fail to deter undocumented migrants from crossing the border. Speaking about the campaign specifically, Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, said, “The campaign is not really educating people. They’re already educated. They’ve already concluded it’s a manageable risk, so seeing tombstones in a cemetery isn’t going to do it.” However, the reaction to the campaign in the popular press has been positive, and some activists have endorsed its agenda. Iliana Holguin, executive director of the Diocesan

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 38

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

39

Migrant & Refugee Services in El Paso, stated, “I think that a lot of times migrants don’t know how dangerous the journey to the U.S. is, and any time they’re warned of that I think is good.” But even well-intentioned messages can entrench social, political, and economic inequalities. Jenny Edbauer Rice argues, “Language affectively articulates a social imaginary within which political discourse is lodged.  .  . . To borrow Kenneth Burke’s well-worn term, we are ‘identified’ with the structures of ideology through an affective investment.” Perspectives are “held together by an empowering and conservative energy that naturalizes the current political economic landscape and constructs its diverse unwanted effects as aberrations to be feared.” The campaign presents God and nature as legitimating forces that verify the geographical and political authority of the border, while depriving migrants of individual agency. Using the terminology of Kenneth Burke, the advertisements are dominated by scene, indicating a materialist perspective that reduces action to motion. Whereas previous Border Patrol advertisements have focused on the ability of law enforcement agents to apprehend migrants, the “No Más Cruces” campaign shifts the emphasis to scene, wherein people are “constrained or dominated . . . and lack free will.” Border Patrol officers are not present in any of the ads, which suggests that they will not be there to rescue migrants who need their assistance. The advertisements suggest to both first-time crossers and their acquaintances that the outcome of border journeys is tragic, given the visual and discursive appeals that naturalize the consequences of crossings as immutably fated. The rhetorical effect of the advertisements is to draw attention away from the systemic causes of migrant border deaths. As Josue David Cisneros suggests, “immigrant bodies get stuck together with recurring (circulating) representations of immigrants and with material experiences to reiterate dominant beliefs.” The “bodies” of Border Patrol agents are absent from these fables, enhancing the authenticity of the ads but also rendering invisible the role of US policy in border deaths. Border enforcement tactics implemented since the early 1990s to stem the flow of undocumented immigration through urban areas have diverted undocumented migrants to more dangerous and desolate crossing areas. The idea was that “formidable mountains and scorching deserts would deter crossings in more hazardous areas like the Arizona desert,” but instead, undocumented workers now venture through “inhospitable terrain and expose themselves to dangerous climatic extremes to a much larger extent than they did 10 or 20 years ago.” The result has been deadly, with border

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 39

8/5/15 2:04 PM

40

|

activism and public campaigns

deaths rising in proportion to apprehensions. The commercials mask the role of US border policies in these tragic deaths by assigning individuals—not corporations or governments—moral culpability. As Joseph Nevins argues, “It is the individual migrant who must pay the consequences for being in a national space in which she does not belong—not those who create the conditions that fuel such migration.” In Pedro Páramo, Juan Preciado is able to “see through the eyes of the dead,” to experience his mother’s memories as if she had “given me her eyes to see,” and in the process give readers insights into Mexican society. However, as Kenneth Burke famously points out, “A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing,” and with the urging of spectral visions and a fated consequence determined by God and nature, audiences of the “No Más Cruces” campaign are left with no option other than to punish the “unruly” aspect of the self, becoming examples of “mortification in spite of itself.” note s 1. For more on the “No Más Cruces” campaign, see Richard Marosi, “Border Patrol Tries New Tune to Deter Crossers,” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2005, http://articles.latimes .com/2005/jul/04/local/me-bordersongs4; and Theresa Borden, “Ad Blitz Will Try to Head Off Crossings,” Arizona Daily Star, October 11, 2004, http://azstarnet.com/news/national/ad -blitz-will-try-to-head-off-crossings/article_5efe9b2f-253b-5703-b3eb-18a8262b767c.html. 2. Maria Herrara-Sobek, “The Border Patrol and Their Migra Corridos: Propaganda, Genre Adaptation, and Mexican Immigration,” American Studies Journal 57 (2012), http://www .asjournal.org/?p=481. 3. Paloma Esquivel, “Making the Border Less Exciting to Cross,” Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/08/local/la-me-border-patrol-20120409. 4. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, “New Series of Advertisements Address Perils of Border Crossing,” May 7, 2004, http://lubbockonline.com/stories/050704/sta_0507040069.shtml. 5. Quoted in Carolina Moreno, “Border Crossing Deaths More Common as Illegal Immigration Declines,” Huffington Post, August 17, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/ border-crossing-deaths-illegal-immigration_n_1783912.html. 6. Brian L. Ott, “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (March 2010): 42. Other scholars have established a clearer distinction between affect and emotion. For example, Christian Lundberg argues that emotion describes “a subjectively felt state,” while affect describes “the set of forces, investments, logics, relations, and practices of subjectivization that are the conditions of possibility for emotion.” Lundberg, “Enjoying God’s Death: The Passion of the Christ and the Practices of an Evangelical Public,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 4 (November 2009): 390. 7. Jenny Edbauer Rice, “The New ‘New’: Making a Case for Critical Affect Studies,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94, no. 2 (May 2008): 206. There is extensive scholarship on the “affective turn” in the humanities and social sciences. For two prominent collections of essays on affect, see Patricia Ticineto Clough, with Jean Halley, eds., The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007); and Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, eds., The Affect Theory Reader (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 40

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

41

8. See Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002); Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002); Lisa A. Flores, “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 4 (December 2003): 362–87; Leo R. Chavez, Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Anne Demo, “Policy and the Media in Immigration Studies,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (2004): 215–29; and Jonathan Xavier Inda, Targeting Immigrants: Government, Technology, and Ethics (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006). 9. See Marouf Hasian Jr. and Fernando Delgado, “The Trials and Tribulations of Racialized Critical Rhetorical Theory: Understanding the Rhetorical Ambiguities of Proposition 187,” Communication Theory 8, no. 3 (August 1998): 245–70; and Jessica LeAnn Urban, Nation, Immigration, and Environmental Security (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 10. D. Robert DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (February 2009): 50. 11. J. David Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 149. Using theories of affect, emotion, and performance, Cisneros argues that anti-immigration legislation codifies immigrant bodies as sources of fear, with corresponding repressive measures taken against them. 12. There are notable exceptions. For an example of government-sponsored appeals directed to domestic audiences, see Anne Demo, “Sovereignty Discourse and Contemporary Immigration Politics,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 91, no. 3 (August 2005): 291–311. 13. El Paso Times, “Border Patrol Uses Tunes to Warn of Crossing Dangers: Migracorridos Catchy but Tragic,” January 23, 2009, http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11533446. 14. Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal,’” 148. 15. Alejandro Lazo, “La Plaza: At the Corner of Madison Ave. and K St.,” Washington Post, October 9, 2008, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washbizblog/2008/10/la_plaza_3.html. 16. Ott, “Visceral Politics,” 50. 17. Lorraine Daston and Fernando Vidal, “Doing What Comes Naturally,” in The Moral Authority of Nature, ed. Lorraine Daston and Fernando Vidal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 2. 18. Noël Sturgeon, Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009), 19. 19. A notable exception is J. David Cisneros’s insightful essay comparing news media coverage of immigration with news media coverage of pollution, arguing that popular discourse dehumanizes immigrants “by constructing them as threatening substances, denying them agency and reinforcing common stereotypes.” Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 591. 20. Dolores Inés Casillas, “Sounds of Surveillance: U.S. Spanish-Language Radio Patrols la Migra,” American Quarterly 63, no. 3 (September 2011): 817; and Catherine Elsworth, “Grim Border Ballads Warn Off Mexicans,” Telegraph, July 7, 2005, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/1493575/Grim-border-ballads -warn-off-Mexicans.html. 21. Pia M. Orrenius, “Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Along the Southwest Border,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, June 2001, 33, http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/ research/border/tbe_orrenius.pdf.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 41

8/5/15 2:04 PM

42

|

activism and public campaigns

22. Wayne A. Cornelius, “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993–2004,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, no. 4 (July 2005): 775–94; and Chad C. Haddal, “Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol,” in U.S. Border Security, ed. Alek Murati and Simon Hofer (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2012), 1–46. 23. Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, Genelle Gaudinez, Hector Lara, and Billie C. Ortiz, “‘There’s a Spirit That Transcends the Border’: Faith, Ritual, and Postnational Protest at the U.S.-Mexico Border,” Sociological Perspectives 47, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 142. 24. Quoted in Hannah Rappleye and Riordan Seville, “Deadly Crossing: Death Toll Rises Among Those Desperate for the American Dream,” NBCNews.com, July 25, 2013. 25. Cornelius, “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration,” 783. There were 3,218 border deaths, as compared to 2,752 WTC deaths. 26. Timothy Egan, “Border Desert Proves Deadly for Mexicans,” New York Times, May 23, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/us/border-desert-proves-deadly-for-mexicans.html. It is likely that the number of actual border deaths is much higher than official estimates, since agents do not recover the bodies of all of the deceased. See Wayne A. Cornelius, “Death at the Border: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Control Policy,” Population and Development Review 27, no. 4 (December 2001): 669. For a description of the dangers of crossing the Arizona desert, see John Annerino, Dead in Their Tracks: Crossing America’s Desert Borderlands in the New Era (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009). 27. Cornelius, “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration,” 783. 28. Michael J. Fisher, “Enhancing DHS’ Efforts to Disrupt Alien Smuggling Across Our Borders,” testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2010, http://www.hsdl .org/?view&doc=127580&coll=limited. 29. Dallas Morning News, “Widow Warns About Dangers of Border-Crossing—New Ad Campaign Uses a Personal Touch in an Effort to Save Lives,” June 26, 1999, http://infoweb .newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb. 30. Casillas, “Sounds of Surveillance,” 817. 31. Ibid., 817–18. 32. Cornelius, “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration,” 777. 33. Borden, “Ad Blitz Will Try.” 34. Marosi, “Border Patrol Tries New Tune.” 35. Quoted in ibid. 36. There is anecdotal evidence that these efforts worked to mask the identity of the ad’s sponsor for at least some members of the target market. After speaking with migrants in a Tijuana shelter, the Los Angeles Times reported that few who had seen the commercials would have guessed that US Customs and Border Protection had made them. See Marosi, “Border Patrol Tries New Tune.” 37. The television commercials can be viewed on the Elevación website, http://www.Elevation -us.com. 38. Roberto S. Goizueta, “The Symbolic World of Mexican American Religion,” in Horizons of the Sacred: Mexican Traditions in U.S. Catholicism, ed. Timothy Matovina and Gary Riebe-Estrella (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), 123. 39. Ibid. 40. Rodolfo Hernández (chief creative officer, Elevación), telephone interview by Terence Check, August 1, 2013. 41. Juan Rulfo, Pedro Páramo, trans. Margaret Sayers Peden (1955; reprint, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). For more on the religious symbolism of the novel, see Ken Eckert, “Christian Purgatory and Redemption in Juan Rulfo’s Pedro Páramo,” Asian Journal of Latin

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 42

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

43

American Studies 24, no. 4 (2011): 73–83. For an analysis of the use of tragedy in the novel, see Patrick Dove, “Reflections on the Origin: Transculturation and Tragedy in Pedro Páramo,” Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 6, no. 1 (April 2001): 91–110. 42. Rulfo, Pedro Páramo, 41. 43. Danny J. Anderson, “The Ghosts of Comala: Haunted Meaning in Pedro Páramo,” http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/rulped-intro.html. 44. Ibid., par. 4. 45. Avery F. Gordon, Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 8. 46. Gregory J. Seigworth and Melissa Gregg, “An Inventory of Shimmers,” in Seigworth and Gregg, Affect Theory Reader, 1 (emphasis in original). 47. Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, “Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of ‘Accidental Napalm,’ ” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 1 (2003): 60. 48. D. Robert DeChaine, “Affect and Embodied Understanding in Musical Experience,” Text and Performance Quarterly 22, no. 2 (April 2002): 86. 49. Goizueta, “Symbolic World,” 124 (emphasis in original). 50. Owen Davies, The Haunted: A Social History of Ghosts (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 6. 51. William L. MacDonald, “Idionecrophanies: The Social Construction of Perceived Contact with the Dead,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31, no. 2 (1992): 215–23. 52. Christopher P. Scheitle, “Bringing Out the Dead: Gender and Historical Cycles of Spiritualism,” Omega 50, no. 3 (2004–5): 237–53. 53. See Noreen M. Glover and Charlene J. Blankenship, “Mexican and Mexican Americans’ Beliefs About God in Relation to Disability,” Journal of Rehabilitation 73, no. 4 (October– December 2007): 41–50. 54. For more on the role of ghosts and apparitions in Catholic teachings, see Lisa J. Schwebel, Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2004), 41–47. 55. Martin Austin Nesvig, “Introduction,” in Religious Cultures in Modern Mexico, ed. Martin Austin Nesvig (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), 1. For more on the importance of religion in Mexican culture, see Roberto J. Blancarte, “The Changing Face of Religion in the Democratization of Mexico: The Case of Catholicism,” in Religious Pluralism, Democracy, and the Catholic Church in Latin America, ed. Frances Hagopian (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 225–29. 56. Josefina Lujan and Howard B. Campbell, “The Role of Religion on the Health Practices of Mexican Americans,” Journal of Religion and Health 45, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 183. 57. Eduardo C. Fernández, Mexican-American Catholics (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2007), 61. 58. Sara Ahmed, “Affective Economies,” Social Text 22, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 119 (emphasis in original). 59. For a description of the features of lament, see William S. Morrow, Protest Against God: The Eclipse of a Biblical Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006). 60. Sandra L. Lobar, JoAnne M. Youngblut, and Dorothy Brooten, “Cross-Cultural Beliefs, Ceremonies, and Rituals Surrounding Death of a Loved One,” Pediatric Nursing 32, no. 1 (January–February 2006): 44–50. 61. Richard A. Hughes, Lament, Death, and Destiny (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 155. 62. James M. Wilce, Crying Shame: Metaculture, Modernity, and the Exaggerated Death of Lament (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2009), 23.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 43

8/5/15 2:04 PM

44

|

activism and public campaigns

63. Brian R. Larkin, The Very Nature of God: Baroque Catholicism and Religious Reform in Bourbon Mexico City (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2010), 29. For more on the importance of sacred symbols in Mexican culture, see Pamela Voekel, Alone Before God: The Religious Origins of Modernity in Mexico (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002); and Jennifer Scheper Hughes, Biography of a Mexican Crucifix: Lived Religion and Local Faith from the Conquest to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 64. Rosa María Icaza, “The Cross in Popular Mexican Piety,” Liturgy 1 (1980): 34. 65. Ibid., 32. 66. Gearoid O’Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 1. 67. William Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, ed. William Cronon (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 70. 68. For a description of the sublime response to wilderness, see Christine Oravec, “John Muir, Yosemite, and the Sublime Response: A Study in the Rhetoric of Preservationism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 67, no. 3 (August 1981): 245–58. 69. Cronon, “Trouble with Wilderness,” 70. 70. Ibid., 71. 71. Lujan and Campbell, “Role of Religion,” 186. 72. Goizueta, “Symbolic World,” 122. 73. Greg Bankoff, “In the Eye of the Storm: The Social Construction of the Forces of Nature and the Climatic and Seismic Construction of God in the Philippines,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35, no. 1 (February 2004): 94. 74. Icaza, “Cross in Popular Mexican Piety,” 30. 75. Ibid., 31. 76. Larkin, Very Nature of God, 29. 77. Claudio Lomnitz, Death and the Idea of Mexico (New York: Zone Books, 2005), 476. 78. For an explanation of how oppositional arguments upset enthymematic assumptions in the public sphere, see Kathryn M. Olson and G. Thomas Goodnight, “Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy over Fur,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80, no. 3 (1994): 249–76. 79. Charles Kemp, “Culture and the End of Life,” Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing 3, no. 1 (January–March 2001): 29. 80. Lazo, “Plaza.” 81. Elsworth, “Grim Border Ballads.” 82. For a description of the features of testimonial narratives, see Patricia O’Byrne, “The Testimonial Literature of Twentieth-Century Spanish Women Novelists: Two Case Studies,” Romance Studies 26, no. 1 (January 2008): 76–85. Although the brother in the “Funeral” spot does not explicitly call for political change, his story implies the need for significant changes in social behavior, as he conveys an account that is meant to discourage undocumented migrants from crossing the border. 83. George Yudice, “Testimonio and Postmodernism,” Latin American Perspectives 18, no. 3 (Summer 1991): 26. 84. David S. Birdsell and Leo Groarke, “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument,” Argumentation and Advocacy 43, nos. 3–4 (2007): 107. 85. Kemp, “Culture and the End of Life,” 29. 86. Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 267. 87. The concepts of consonant and dissonant tones is discussed in Linda M. Scott, “Understanding Jingles and Needledrop: A Rhetorical Approach to Music in Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September 1990): 223–36.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 44

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

45

88. DeChaine, “Affect and Embodied Understanding,” 81. 89. Quoted in Marosi, “Border Patrol Tries New Tune.” 90. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Today, “Agents Fight Record Heat to Save Lives on Southern Border,” July–August 2005, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2005/Jul_Aug/ other/lk_heat_wave.xml. 91. Ahmed, “Affective Economies,” 119. 92. Ibid., 132. 93. Ashley Surdin, “Crossover Appeal: Border Patrol Uses Music to Cross a Cultural Line,” Washington Post, March 15, 2009, http://www.washintonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/03/13/AR2009031304234.html; Casillas, “Sounds of Surveillance”; and Marisol LeBrón, “ ‘Migracorridos’: Another Failed Anti-Immigration Campaign,” North American Congress on Latin America, March 17, 2009, http://nacla.org/news/migracorridos-another-failed-anti -immigration-campaign. 94. Esquivel, “Making the Border Less Exciting”; also see Juan Gastelum, “Border Patrol Turns to Foreign Media to Discourage Unauthorized Border Crossings,” Univision News, April 10, 2012, http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/border-patrol-turns-to-foreign-media-to-discourage -unauthorized-border-crossings.php. 95. Hernández, interview. 96. Quoted in Marosi, “Border Patrol Tries New Tune.” 97. Quoted in El Paso Times, “Border Patrol Uses Tunes.” 98. Rice, “New ‘New,’” 205. 99. Catherine Chaput, “Fear, Affective Energy, and the Political Economy of Global Capitalism,” in Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 4. 100. Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives (1945; reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 131. 101. Anna Kimberly Turnage, “Scene, Art, and the Tragic Frame in the Duke Rape Case,” Southern Communication Journal 74, no. 2 (April–June 2009): 143. 102. Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal,’” 138. 103. Cornelius, “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration,” 779. 104. Orrenius, “Illegal Immigration and Enforcement,” 33. 105. Ananda Rose, “Death in the Desert,” New York Times, June 21, 2012, http://www.nytimes .com/2012/06/22/opinion/migrants-dying-on-the-us-mexico-border.html. 106. Joseph Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary (New York: Routledge, 2002), 173. 107. Anderson, “Ghosts of Comala.” 108. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose (1954; reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 49. 109. Kenneth Burke, The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology (1961; reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), 190.

bibl io gr a ph y Ahmed, Sara. “Affective Economies.” Social Text 22, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 117–39. Anderson, Danny J. “The Ghosts of Comala: Haunted Meaning in Pedro Páramo.” http://www .utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/rulped-intro.html. Annerino, John. Dead in Their Tracks: Crossing America’s Desert Borderlands in the New Era. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009. Bankoff, Greg. “In the Eye of the Storm: The Social Construction of the Forces of Nature and the Climatic and Seismic Construction of God in the Philippines.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35, no. 1 (February 2004): 91–111.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 45

8/5/15 2:04 PM

46

|

activism and public campaigns

Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43, nos. 3–4 (2007): 103–13. Blancarte, Roberto J. “The Changing Face of Religion in the Democratization of Mexico: The Case of Catholicism.” In Religious Pluralism, Democracy, and the Catholic Church in Latin America, ed. Frances Hagopian, 225–29. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009. Borden, Theresa. “Ad Blitz Will Try to Head Off Crossings.” Arizona Daily Star, October 11, 2004. http://azstarnet.com/news/national/ad-blitz-will-try-to-head-off-crossings/article _5efe9b2f-253b-5703-b3eb-18a8262b767c.html. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. 1945. Reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. ———. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. 1954. Reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ———. The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. 1961. Reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Casillas, Dolores Inés. “Sounds of Surveillance: U.S. Spanish-Language Radio Patrols la Migra.” American Quarterly 63, no. 3 (September 2011): 807–29. Chaput, Catherine. “Fear, Affective Energy, and the Political Economy of Global Capitalism.” In Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown, 1–22. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Chavez, Leo R. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. ———. “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 133–50. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Clough, Patricia Ticineto, with Jean Halley, eds. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Cornelius, Wayne A. “Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993–2004.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, no. 4 (July 2005): 775–94. ———. “Death at the Border: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Control Policy.” Population and Development Review 27, no. 4 (December 2001): 661–85. Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, ed. William Cronon, 69–90. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. Dallas Morning News. “Widow Warns About Dangers of Border-Crossing—New Ad Campaign Uses a Personal Touch in an Effort to Save Lives.” June 26, 1999. http://infoweb.newsbank .com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb. Daston, Lorraine, and Fernando Vidal. “Doing What Comes Naturally.” In The Moral Authority of Nature, ed. Lorraine Daston and Fernando Vidal, 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Davies, Owen. The Haunted: A Social History of Ghosts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. DeChaine, D. Robert. “Affect and Embodied Understanding in Musical Experience.” Text and Performance Quarterly 22, no. 2 (April 2002): 79–98. ———. “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (February 2009): 43–65. Demo, Anne. “Policy and the Media in Immigration Studies.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (2004): 215–29.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 46

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

47

———. “Sovereignty Discourse and Contemporary Immigration Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 91, no. 3 (August 2005): 291–311. Dove, Patrick. “Reflections on the Origin: Transculturation and Tragedy in Pedro Páramo.” Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 6, no. 1 (April 2001): 91–110. Eckert, Ken. “Christian Purgatory and Redemption in Juan Rulfo’s Pedro Páramo.” Asian Journal of Latin American Studies 24, no. 4 (2011): 73–83. Egan, Timothy. “Border Desert Proves Deadly for Mexicans.” New York Times, May 23, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/us/border-desert-proves-deadly-for-mexicans .html. El Paso Times. “Border Patrol Uses Tunes to Warn of Crossing Dangers: Migracorridos Catchy but Tragic.” January 23, 2009. http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11533446. Elsworth, Catherine. “Grim Border Ballads Warn Off Mexicans.” Telegraph, July 7, 2005. http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/ 1493575/Grim-border-ballads-warn-off-Mexicans.html. Esquivel, Paloma. “Making the Border Less Exciting to Cross.” Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/08/local/la-me-border-patrol-20120409. Fernández, Eduardo C. Mexican-American Catholics. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2007. Fisher, Michael J. “Enhancing DHS’ Efforts to Disrupt Alien Smuggling Across Our Borders.” Testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2010. http:// www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=127580&coll=limited. Flores, Lisa A. “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 4 (December 2003): 362–87. Gastelum, Juan. “Border Patrol Turns to Foreign Media to Discourage Unauthorized Border Crossings.” Univision News, April 10, 2012. http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/border -patrol-turns-to-foreign-media-to-discourage-unauthorized-border-crossings.php. Glover, Noreen M., and Charlene J. Blankenship. “Mexican and Mexican Americans’ Beliefs About God in Relation to Disability.” Journal of Rehabilitation 73, no. 4 (October– December 2007): 41–50. Goizueta, Roberto S. “The Symbolic World of Mexican American Religion.” In Horizons of the Sacred: Mexican Traditions in U.S. Catholicism, ed. Timothy Matovina and Gary RiebeEstrella, 119–38. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002. Gordon, Avery F. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Gregg, Melissa, and Gregory J. Seigworth, eds. The Affect Theory Reader. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Haddal, Chad C. “Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol.” In U.S. Border Security, ed. Alek Murati and Simon Hofer, 1–46. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2012. Hariman, Robert, and John Louis Lucaites. “Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of ‘Accidental Napalm.’ ” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 1 (2003): 35–66. Hasian, Marouf, Jr., and Fernando Delgado. “The Trials and Tribulations of Racialized Critical Rhetorical Theory: Understanding the Rhetorical Ambiguities of Proposition 187.” Communication Theory 8, no. 3 (August 1998): 245–70. Hernández, Rodolfo (chief creative officer, Elevación). Telephone interview by Terence Check, August 1, 2013. Herrara-Sobek, Maria. “The Border Patrol and Their Migra Corridos: Propaganda, Genre Adaptation, and Mexican Immigration.” American Studies Journal 57 (2012). http:// www.asjournal.org/?p=481.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 47

8/5/15 2:04 PM

48

|

activism and public campaigns

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, Genelle Gaudinez, Hector Lara, and Billie C. Ortiz. “ ‘There’s a Spirit That Transcends the Border’: Faith, Ritual, and Postnational Protest at the U.S.Mexico Border.” Sociological Perspectives 47, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 133–59. Hughes, Jennifer Scheper. Biography of a Mexican Crucifix: Lived Religion and Local Faith from the Conquest to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hughes, Richard A. Lament, Death, and Destiny. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Icaza, Rosa María. “The Cross in Popular Mexican Piety.” Liturgy 1 (1980): 27–34. Inda, Jonathan Xavier. Targeting Immigrants: Government, Technology, and Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Kemp, Charles. “Culture and the End of Life.” Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing 3, no. 1 (January–March 2001): 29–34. Larkin, Brian R. The Very Nature of God: Baroque Catholicism and Religious Reform in Bourbon Mexico City. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2010. Lazo, Alejandro. “La Plaza: At the Corner of Madison Ave. and K St.” Washington Post, October 9, 2008. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washbizblog/2008/10/la_plaza_3.html. LeBrón, Marisol. “‘Migracorridos’: Another Failed Anti-Immigration Campaign.” North American Congress on Latin America, March 17, 2009. http://nacla.org/news/migracorridos -another-failed-anti-immigration-campaign. Lobar, Sandra L., JoAnne M. Youngblut, and Dorothy Brooten. “Cross-Cultural Beliefs, Ceremonies, and Rituals Surrounding Death of a Loved One.” Pediatric Nursing 32, no. 1 (January–February 2006): 44–50. Lomnitz, Claudio. Death and the Idea of Mexico. New York: Zone Books, 2005. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. “New Series of Advertisements Address Perils of Border Crossing.” May 7, 2004. http://lubbockonline.com/stories/050704/sta_0507040069.shtml. Lujan, Josefina, and Howard B. Campbell. “The Role of Religion on the Health Practices of Mexican Americans.” Journal of Religion and Health 45, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 183–95. Lundberg, Christian. “Enjoying God’s Death: The Passion of the Christ and the Practices of an Evangelical Public.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 4 (November 2009): 387–411. MacDonald, William L. “Idionecrophanies: The Social Construction of Perceived Contact with the Dead.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31, no. 2 (1992): 215–23. Marosi, Richard. “Border Patrol Tries New Tune to Deter Crossers.” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2005. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/04/local/me-bordersongs4. Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Moreno, Carolina. “Border Crossing Deaths More Common as Illegal Immigration Declines.” Huffington Post, August 17, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/border -crossing-deaths-illegal-immigration_n_1783912.html. Morrow, William S. Protest Against God: The Eclipse of a Biblical Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. Nesvig, Martin Austin. “Introduction.” In Religious Cultures in Modern Mexico, ed. Martin Austin Nesvig, 1–13. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. Nevins, Joseph. Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.Mexico Boundary. New York: Routledge, 2002. O’Byrne, Patricia. “The Testimonial Literature of Twentieth-Century Spanish Women Novelists: Two Case Studies.” Romance Studies 26, no. 1 (January 2008): 76–85. Olson, Kathryn M., and G. Thomas Goodnight. “Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy over Fur.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80, no. 3 (1994): 249–76. Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Oravec, Christine. “John Muir, Yosemite, and the Sublime Response: A Study in the Rhetoric of Preservationism.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 67, no. 3 (August 1981): 245–58.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 48

8/5/15 2:04 PM

facing ghosts, god, and nature

|

49

Orrenius, Pia M. “Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Along the Southwest Border.” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, June 2001, 30–34. http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/ research/border/tbe_orrenius.pdf. Ott, Brian L. “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (March 2010): 39–54. O’Tuathail, Gearoid. Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Rappleye, Hannah, and Riordan Seville. “Deadly Crossing: Death Toll Rises Among Those Desperate for the American Dream.” NBCNews.com, July 25, 2013. Rice, Jenny Edbauer. “The New ‘New’: Making a Case for Critical Affect Studies.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94, no. 2 (May 2008): 200–212. Rose, Ananda. “Death in the Desert.” New York Times, June 21, 2012. http://www.nytimes .com/2012/06/22/opinion/migrants-dying-on-the-us-mexico-border.html. Rulfo, Juan. Pedro Páramo. Translated by Margaret Sayers Peden. 1955. Reprint, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Scheitle, Christopher P. “Bringing Out the Dead: Gender and Historical Cycles of Spiritualism.” Omega 50, no. 3 (2004–5): 237–53. Schwebel, Lisa J. Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2004. Scott, Linda M. “Understanding Jingles and Needledrop: A Rhetorical Approach to Music in Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September 1990): 223–36. Seigworth, Gregory J., and Melissa Gregg. “An Inventory of Shimmers.” In The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 1–25. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Sturgeon, Noël. Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009. Surdin, Ashley. “Crossover Appeal: Border Patrol Uses Music to Cross a Cultural Line.” Washington Post, March 15, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/03/13/AR2009031304234.html. Turnage, Anna Kimberly. “Scene, Art, and the Tragic Frame in the Duke Rape Case.” Southern Communication Journal 74, no. 2 (April–June 2009): 141–56. Urban, Jessica LeAnn. Nation, Immigration, and Environmental Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Today. “Agents Fight Record Heat to Save Lives on Southern Border.” July–August 2005. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2005/Jul_Aug/ other/lk_heat_wave.xml. Voekel, Pamela. Alone Before God: The Religious Origins of Modernity in Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Wilce, James M. Crying Shame: Metaculture, Modernity, and the Exaggerated Death of Lament. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Yudice, George. “Testimonio and Postmodernism.” Latin American Perspectives 18, no. 3 (Summer 1991): 15–31.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 49

8/5/15 2:04 PM

2

faithful sovereignty Denationalizing Immigration Policy in the 2003 Pastoral Letter on Migration Anne Teresa Demo

Immigrant rights activists had few allies in the decade between the start of the deterrence strategy of border enforcement in 1993 and the organization of immigration enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. During that period, the rise in anti-immigration rhetoric, hate crimes against Latinos, and repressive immigration-enforcement measures normalized what anthropologist Leo Chavez describes as the “Latino threat narrative,” which assumes that Latinos are inassimilable and pose a civic, social, and safety threat to the nation. Although the focus of enmity was undocumented immigrants, political scientist Lina Newton notes that starting in the mid1990s, “congressional rhetoric and policy promoted a construction of legal immigrants that looked much like that of the undocumented.” Sociologists Douglas Massey and Magaly Sánchez go even further, concluding that “the United States now increasingly looks like a police state to immigrants, whatever their documentation.” Within this context, political conversations about illegal immigration featured few arguments that emphasized the dignity of migrants, and the right to control immigration was seldom challenged. In contrast, the theological conversation about migration led by the Catholic Church actively employed a moral framework that recontextualized the debate over immigration enforcement and reframed the relative rights of migrants and sovereign states in politically significant ways. This chapter focuses on a formative document within that conversation and clergy activism for comprehensive immigration reform. The 2003 pastoral letter on migration, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, issued jointly by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano (CEM), outlined the theological basis for the policy priorities pursued by church lead-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 50

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

51

ers and for the activism of dioceses across the United States. Its importance was marked in 2013 during the USCCB’s annual National Migration Week, which commemorated the tenth anniversary of Strangers No Longer and featured a postcard campaign in support of comprehensive immigration reform. In 2014, church leaders cited the document directly in congressional hearings on the humanitarian crisis surrounding the influx of unaccompanied child migrants from Central America. The emerging scholarship on clergy advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform commonly cites Strangers No Longer as historic and foundational but takes a sociological perspective that emphasizes the relationship between theology, church hierarchy, and pastoral care over the discursive frames introduced in the text. Although the document Strangers No Longer adopts the conventions of modern pastoral letters, such as balancing doctrinal sources with ecumenical style, the approach to migrant dignity and sovereignty established a moral framework that denationalizes the immigration issue. In this chapter, I argue that the document broadens the conception of dignity and challenges border control as a sovereign right that supersedes moral obligations to human rights. As a statement of theologically grounded policy recommendations, Strangers No Longer had no immediate legislative impact other than introducing a line of argument completely marginalized from congressional debates over immigration. But, as political scientist Mark Ensalaco notes, “many Catholics heard its message and responded in myriad ways to create in their communities, as the bishops had asked, a climate of hospitality rather than hostility.” In what follows, I show that the discursive frames introduced in Strangers No Longer continue to circulate and influence interdenominational advocacy on comprehensive immigration reform. My analysis focuses on the conception of migrant dignity and sovereignty outlined in the document, which functions as an ur-text for ongoing clergy activism. The analysis therefore explores two overarching questions. First, how does the discussion of migrant dignity expand humanizing tropes common in arguments that seek to decriminalize immigration? And second, what caveats on the exercise of state sovereignty are established, and how do they undermine the hegemony of a national framework (versus a binational, hemispheric, or global framework) for immigration policy? The chapter thus builds on Karma Chávez’s recent call for rhetorical scholars to foreground alternatives to the “state’s conservative ideographs” that equate border militarization with national security. Chávez justly critiques scholarship that has normalized the rhetoric of security used by the state, and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 51

8/5/15 2:04 PM

52

|

activism and public campaigns

makes a strong case for employing the “language of militarization” in studies about enforcement policy. Although Strangers No Longer neither employs the term “militarization” nor focuses on the use of military tactics and technology as means of border enforcement, the broadened notion of migrant dignity and the reconception of sovereignty advanced by the USCCB challenge the hegemony of the national security frame in important ways. Specifically, the theological rationale for comprehensive immigration reform established in Strangers No Longer lays the groundwork for contesting militarization and legitimizing a binational/hemispheric approach to immigration that emphasizes economic development and human rights. In what follows, I first situate Strangers No Longer within the context of Catholic social teaching on migration and interdenominational activism for immigrant rights, and then provide an overview of the functions and rhetorical characteristics that have defined USCCB pastoral letters. My analysis identifies the key sources of Catholic doctrine that shaped the perspective on migrant dignity and state sovereignty in Strangers No Longer, and delineates how the document’s framing of the concepts denationalizes the issue and undermines the association between immigration enforcement and national security. I conclude by calling for additional rhetorical scholarship on the evolving relationship between the immigrant rights movement, religious institutions, and interfaith alliances.

Immigrant Rights and the Catholic Church Diverse denominations have a long-standing organizational history of aiding refugee resettlement and, increasingly, advocating for the rights of immigrants in local controversies over immigration enforcement. The Catholic Church’s activism, however, predates the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and encompasses all levels of church hierarchy. The opening of Pope Pius XII’s 1952 apostolic constitution, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, prescribed the guiding referent for the Catholic Church’s pastoral care of migrants: “The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.” Exsul Familia not only established a theological precedent for arguments supporting “the right of people

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 52

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

53

to migrate” but also formalized institutional channels such as the International Catholic Migration Commission, whose mission remains to support and protect the rights of the uprooted in more than forty countries. Pope John Paul II commemorated World Migration Day (a celebration first established by Saint Pius X in 1914) annually during his papacy, and specifically addressed the issue of illegal immigration in every message from 1995 until his death in 2005. Pope Benedict’s October 2012 statement for World Migration Day affirmed the right of states to regulate migration if the policies are “dictated by the general requirements of the common good” and “respect for the dignity of each human person.” The most far-reaching positions, however, have been advanced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, formerly the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). Over the past decade, the USCCB has promoted the rights of undocumented immigrants in even more direct terms than Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict did, making comprehensive immigration reform a public policy priority for US Catholics. During his tenure overseeing the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony called on his parishioners to defy a proposed law (H.R. 4437) that would have criminalized individuals and organizations serving the undocumented. His action prompted a New York Times editorial that concluded, “Cardinal Mahony’s declaration of solidarity with illegal immigrants . . . is a startling call to civil disobedience, as courageous as it is timely. We hope it forestalls the day when works of mercy become a federal crime.” Conservative news commentators such as Lou Dobbs and Tucker Carlson joined prominent Republicans in criticizing church leadership, with Dobbs and Carlson questioning the Catholic Church’s tax-exempt status based on the activism of Mahony and the USCCB. Although Mahony’s actions captured headlines, his efforts were part of the larger national Justice for Immigrants (JFI) campaign launched in 2005 by the USCCB and other national Catholic organizations such as Catholic Charities USA and Pax Christi USA. The ongoing JFI campaign builds support for comprehensive immigration reform by mobilizing the faithful at the parish level through sample homilies, church bulletin announcements, and letter-writing drives. At the regional and national levels, the campaign encourages church leaders to promote legislative and administrative reforms consistent with the positions outlined in the 2003 pastoral letter on migration Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, which is the focus of this chapter. The USCCB had previously issued a pastoral statement on the topic of immigration as well as parish study guides and videos on the subject; however,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 53

8/5/15 2:04 PM

54

|

activism and public campaigns

Strangers No Longer was a milestone because of its authorship and status as an ur-text for subsequent pastorals and activism. The fifty-page document was the first joint pastoral letter issued by bishops from the United States and Mexico. The USCCB Committee on Migration drafted the letter in collaboration with the CEM, and the letter was approved by the full assemblies of the US and Mexican bishops at their November 2002 general meetings. Issued on the fourth anniversary of Pope John Paul’s 1999 apostolic exhortation, Ecclesia in America, which called for the evangelization of the Americas, the letter provided a blueprint for hemispheric solidarity and political action. El Paso bishop Armando Ochoa characterized the letter as “historic” in part because of its overt call for “more and continued dialogue between President Bush and (Mexican) President Vicente Fox on better avenues of improving the lives of those searching for a better life.” The letter was delivered directly to President Bush with a request to meet, prompting White House spokesperson Scott McClellan to assert, “The president remains committed to working with Mexico toward our shared goal of orderly, humane and legal migration.” Immediate reaction to the letter outside the church was skeptical. For example, Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, argued that the letter would be “less likely to sway American Catholics,” and might even be “seen as a special pleading for a foreign government.” The letter has proved, however, to be a defining statement for interdenominational activism on immigration. Strangers No Longer not only provided the theological basis for the national JFI campaign but also served as a model for subsequent pastoral statements from individual bishops and dioceses across the United States. Sociologist Luisa Heredia characterized the letter as the “foundation” for all subsequent Catholic activism on the issue of immigration. Although other mainline denominations have issued pastoral letters in support of comprehensive immigration reform, the USCCB and Strangers No Longer are widely recognized as forerunners. In 2012, 150 church leaders from prominent evangelical denominations such as the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptist Convention and groups such as Focus on the Family signed the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform.” Signatory and World Relief staffer Matthew Soerens acknowledged the impact of the USCCB’s long-standing leadership on the issue for evangelicals: “The Catholic bishops have, in many ways, led the charge in the larger effort for immigration reform, seeking a response to the challenges and opportunities presented by immigration in ways consistent with biblical values of compassion, justice, and hospitality.” Whereas evangelicals such as Soerens point to general theological points of identification with the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 54

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

55

USCCB, the authority of Strangers No Longer for Catholics derives from its status as a pastoral letter rooted in the social doctrine of the church.

The Pastoral Letter: Instrument of Moral Influence and Hemispheric Solidarity The New Testament contains more than twenty-one letters and seven shorter epistles, making the letter form a foundational genre for all Christian denominations. Within the Catholic Church, the papal encyclical (a didactic letter issued by the pope) has doctrinal authority, whereas the pastoral letter is less binding but used more frequently by bishops seeking to clarify Church doctrine, provide moral guidance on issues, and, by the mid-1980s, influence public policy. According to Camilla Kari’s exhaustive survey of pastoral letters issued by US Catholic bishops from 1792 to 2000, the first pastorals sought to unify the faithful who were dispersed within Protestant communities and had limited access to clergy. Throughout the nineteenth century, the letters “provided reassurance and instruction, asked for support, and admonished them [congregants] to adhere to the faith while being served by only a few scattered clergy.” The pastoral letter underwent significant changes throughout the twentieth century. As Catholicism became a part of the American mainstream, Vatican II formalized a paradigm shift regarding the social justice mission of the church, and secular policy increasingly became the focus instead of church doctrine. As the topics of pastoral letters shifted from church doctrine to secular policy issues throughout the twentieth century, the argument patterns and style used by the bishops also changed. Kari identifies the 1980s as a period of “significant modifications” in the drafting process and “adaptation in rhetorical style,” with The Challenge of Peace marking a peak in the USCCB’s approach to engaging the “moral repercussions of secular policy.” Mark Ensalaco draws parallels between the approach taken in Strangers No Longer and pastoral letters from that period by balancing appeals to the American public and Catholic laity. “On the one hand,” he writes, “they addressed their specific policy proposals to the American public and invoked the familiar language of human rights in the hope of creating a moral consensus. . . . On the other hand they addressed the Catholic faithful, invoking the language of the Gospel and the Church’s social teaching in the hope of stirring a sense of the laity’s responsibilities in the society in which they live.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 55

8/5/15 2:04 PM

56

|

activism and public campaigns

Scholarship on contemporary pastoral letters traces the accumulating constraints imposed by seeking moral influence with diverse audiences. Carol Jablonski’s survey of pastoral letters issued by US bishops in the period before, during, and after Vatican II (1947–81) found that the Catholic Church was not only “more open since the Second Vatican Council” but also “committed to communicating Catholic doctrine in ways that are appealing to individuals within and outside the fold.” Although J. Michael Hogan, Steven Goldzwig, and George Cheney differed in their overall assessments of the 1983 pastoral on nuclear weapons, The Challenge of Peace, they similarly emphasized the need to manage multiple audiences. Whereas Goldzwig and Cheney addressed the constraints imposed when appeasing “internal audiences” (US Catholics and church hierarchy) and “external audiences” (the Reagan administration, media, etc.), Hogan traced how dissent within the church hierarchy shaped the drafting process and reception. John Lynch’s analysis of the 1997 pastoral message on homosexuality, Always Our Children, identified strategies used to appease church authorities while addressing issues that divide them from the laity. As Lynch notes, the Catholic Church encompasses a “complex hierarchy” that requires appealing “not only to audiences of outsiders, lay people, or constituents, but also to their superiors.” Like all pastoral statements issued by US bishops, Always Our Children relied on supporting evidence derived from doctrinal sources. Support from conservative bishops on the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, however, required additional strategies. Specifically, the issue of homosexuality had to be framed in very narrow terms, and the attribution of responsibility was displaced to sources outside the church. The final draft of the pastoral statement issued by the NCCB eventually earned the support of the Vatican but failed with the intended lay audience (Catholic parents of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals). Taken together, this scholarship suggests the numerous potential constraints imposed by the hemispheric framework advanced in the pastoral letter jointly issued by the USCCB and CEM. The colonial legacy of Catholicism in the Americas may seem to complicate calls for hemispheric solidarity. The propagation of Catholic parishes across Latin America enabled and sustained Spanish colonialism during the 1500s. According to historian Adriaan van Oss, “the conversion of the native population to Christianity formed a sine qua non for colonialization.” Historian David Badillo also attributes the “class system of modern Latin America” to Spanish Catholicism. Latino histories of the Catholic Church have begun to argue, however, that a hemispheric perspective reveals not only a history of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 56

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

57

conquest but also the cultural imprint of Latin American and Caribbean cultures on contemporary Catholic parishes in the United States. Despite differences in religious customs practiced by Latinos from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, Badillo argues that “migration has forced the U.S. church, as well as its constituents, to adopt a broad hemispheric consciousness, bridging Latino and Latin American worlds.” For contemporary Latino parishioners, calls for hemispheric solidarity more often reflect church efforts to cultivate ties to their homeland (either in religious custom or missionary outreach) than the history of colonialism. For church leaders, Latino parishioners have the potential to revitalize the US Catholic Church. As theologian Timothy Matovina concludes, “Their historical and contemporary links with Latin America are a vital connection to the most populous Catholic region in the world and enhance the prospects for greater solidarity and common purpose among Catholics across the American hemisphere.” Pope John Paul II’s blueprint for hemispheric solidarity was first fully outlined in the 1999 apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in America, which is the defining doctrinal source for Strangers No Longer. Issued on the fourth anniversary of Ecclesia in America, the bishops begin Strangers No Longer by referencing John Paul’s hemispheric vision of ecclesial solidarity in the first three hundred words of the fifty-page document: “In the spirit of ecclesial solidarity begun in that synod and promoted in Ecclesia in America, and aware of the migration reality our two nations live, we the bishops of Mexico and the United States seek to awaken our peoples to the mysterious presence of the crucified and risen Lord in the person of the migrant and to renew in them the values of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed.” There are more direct references to Ecclesia in America (nine) than to any other doctrinal source. The organizational structure and chapter headings of Strangers No Longer also borrow from Ecclesia in America. For example, the subtitle of John Paul’s text serves as a section heading for the chapter devoted to pastoral care in Strangers No Longer. Although the pastoral letter also cites the New and Old Testaments as well as prominent doctrinal statements on migration such as Exsul Familia and Pacem in Terris, the contextual backdrop, organizational structure, and references to Ecclesia in America fuse the two texts. Referencing the apostolic exhortation as the impetus for the pastoral letter accomplishes three key objectives for reframing the immigration issue. First, the emphasis on hemispheric solidarity ascribes the problem to economic development (not national security), and undermines unilateral and militarized responses by the US government to illegal immigration. Thus, while the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 57

8/5/15 2:04 PM

58

|

activism and public campaigns

letter was drafted by the bishops of two separate nations, the collective pronouns (used more than two hundred times) signify a singular Catholic faith, just as Ecclesia in America signified a unified continent: “We speak as two episcopal conferences but as one Church, united in the view that migration between our two nations is necessary and beneficial.” The first chapter, “America: A Common History of Migration and a Shared Faith in Jesus Christ,” outlines the common history and growing interdependence that unify the continent generally, and the United States and Mexico in particular, as a means to justify the need for the binational policy recommendations that follow: “The realities of migration between both nations require comprehensive policy responses implemented in unison by both countries. The current relationship is weakened by inconsistent and divergent policies that are not coordinated and, in many cases, address only the symptoms of the migration phenomenon and not its root causes.” Second, by connecting immigration directly to John Paul’s call for a “new evangelization of America” and the promotion of “greater integration between nations . . . [and] an authentic globalized culture of solidarity,” Strangers No Longer preempts dissent within the church, whether from conservative bishops or the laity. Indeed, despite the politically far-reaching positions taken in the pastoral letter, it was approved by the full assembly of the USCCB by a vote of 243 to 1. Finally, the position on human dignity taken in Ecclesia in America was instrumental to the expansive account of migrant dignity presented in Strangers No Longer. The pastoral letter derives five key principles from the survey of biblical passages and Catholic doctrine on migration. Within that survey, illegal immigration is addressed most directly in Ecclesia in America, which not only extends the protection of human dignity to the undocumented but also situates the migrant as a focal point of evangelization: “The Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non-legal immigration.  .  . . The Church in America must be constantly concerned to provide for the effective evangelization of those recent arrivals who do not yet know Christ.” Unlike controversial pastoral statements such as The Challenge of Peace and Always Our Children, which pit church hierarchy against factions within the church, Strangers No Longer was directly aligned with John Paul’s call for “new evangelization of America” and position on nonlegal immigration. This alignment allowed the bishops to engage directly in political advocacy, and to use

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 58

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

59

strategic ambiguity not as a means to avoid “doctrinal pronouncements about America’s strategic policies” (as they had in the case of The Challenge of Peace) but to provide cover for the limits on sovereignty advanced by the Catholic bishops. More specifically, the vow to protect the “inherent human dignity” of migrants regardless of legal status stands as a significant check on contemporary conceptions of sovereignty.

Migrant Dignity The recognition of human dignity is essential to international human rights arguments and Catholic outreach on migration since Vatican II. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights opens by affirming the “inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” The 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World made the recognition and protection of human dignity a cornerstone of Catholic outreach and activism. Scholars such as Julie Mertus note, however, that “dignity alone is not sufficient for human rights.” In the context of the Bush administration’s foreign policy after 9/11, Wendy Hesford offers a related caution against substituting “human rights” claims based on international law for “amorphous” appeals to human dignity derived from faith-based initiatives. Although the conception of dignity outlined in Strangers No Longer originates in Catholic theology, the pastoral letter upholds the necessity of guaranteeing basic human rights and labor protections as conditions for human dignity. Five overarching principles derived from Catholic doctrine on migration guide the pastoral and policy recommendations outlined in the text. Respect for human dignity is explicitly addressed in principle five: “The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.” The twoparagraph explication of this principle establishes that human dignity is inherent “regardless of legal status” and dependent on basic human rights. The commitment to this principle is reflected in general pastoral recommendations to the laity (e.g., encouraging community work on behalf of immigrant rights) and targeted appeals such as the “special call” issued to lawyers “to assist individuals and families in navigating the arduous immigration process and to defend the human rights of migrants, especially those in detention.” The policy recommendations also feature specific demands. For example, the bishops urge the United States to sign the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families—Mexico

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 59

8/5/15 2:04 PM

60

|

activism and public campaigns

is a signatory—and exhort both governments to include human rights curricula in the training of immigration enforcement personnel. The letter’s closing call to action emphasizes the legislature as the source of change and human rights protections. Whereas the bishops “ask” presidents and public officials to continue negotiations and demonstrate leadership, they “call for legislatures . . . to effect a conscientious revision of the immigration laws and to establish a binational system that accepts migration flows, guaranteeing the dignity and human rights of the migrant.” The call to respect the dignity of migrants is operationalized in specific pastoral and policy recommendations. The affirmation of human dignity in Strangers No Longer encompasses both the guarantee of human rights and labor protections. In two of the five overarching principles put forth by the bishops, human dignity is contingent on a living wage. The right of people to “find opportunities in their homeland” and the right “to migrate to support themselves and their families” make economic self-determination a component of human dignity as essential as the protection from abuses by state authorities. To live in dignity may encompass political and social opportunities, but “a just, living wage is a basic human need” even more foundational than religious freedom, which is all but unaddressed in the letter. Whereas the dominant political frame for debating immigration reduces migrants to labor providers, civic burdens, or security threats to be policed by the state, the bishops expand the responsibilities of sovereign nations to encompass accommodations for the right to work for survival: “When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.” The correlation between human dignity and a living wage helps justify the broad (binational) perspective on immigration policy proposed in their recommendations. Instead of approaching illegal immigration as an enforcement concern for the United States, the bishops recontextualize migrant flow as a problem caused by economic inequality between sending and receiving nations. In reference to these principles, the bishops argue not only for “targeted development projects” in areas with high rates of emigration but also that the “implementation of economic policies in Mexico that create living wage jobs is vital” in rural areas and for migrants without specialized knowledge or advanced skills. Such recommendations hinge on an expanded notion of human dignity for migrants and a realignment of state responsibilities that prioritizes economic development over security enforcement.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 60

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

61

The topoi for dehumanizing undocumented immigrants has been well honed in debates about immigration policy over the past twenty years. Instead of policies fostering economic development, the national focus, even prior to 9/11, has been on expanding border enforcement infrastructure and detention facilities. Until the immigrant rights marches of 2006, arguments in support of comprehensive immigration reform and the rights of undocumented immigrants were exceedingly rare. When those arguments were advanced, they were based on the economic or civic value that migrant workers brought to communities, not on their “inherent human dignity” or the rights of families to survive economically as an intact unit. To be sure, humanizing appeals have dramatized the work ethic and civic-mindedness of undocumented workers as well as the familial toll that can accompany both the perilous journey and the prolonged separation that enforcement policies engender. Arguments based on the right to migrate for a living wage, human dignity, and family unity were, however, simply inarticulable within the prevailing political paradigm. The thoroughly developed conception of human dignity delineated in Strangers No Longer thus stands as a counterpoint to the “amorphous” appeals that Hesford and Mertus caution against. The right to human dignity has specific inviolable protections, and the bishops’ case for those protections reframes migration from a criminalized act to a pursuit of human dignity that the state is obliged to respect. Human dignity, in other words, is a check on state sovereignty.

Sovereignty The right of a sovereign state to control its borders is explicitly affirmed four times in Strangers No Longer. Indeed, only one reference to sovereignty occurs without such a prefatory affirmation. Nonetheless, the position advanced by the Catholic bishops prompted sharp criticism. In response to the tenth anniversary of the pastoral letter, the Center for Immigration Studies featured an online commentary that derided the position on sovereignty specifically: “The Christian leadership of this country, not really comprehending the wideranging problems connected with illegal immigration, has blessed violating the sovereignty of our nation.” Although the right to control borders is consistently affirmed throughout the pastoral letter, the caveats raised by the bishops explain such condemnations.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 61

8/5/15 2:04 PM

62

|

activism and public campaigns

Previous controversial pastoral statements avoided promoting specific policies by diluting positions through strategic ambiguity or employing argument by negation. In comparison, the qualified affirmations in Strangers No Longer introduce significant checks on sovereign nations. The qualified affirmations take two forms—affirm, then disavow; and affirm, then obligate—which provides political cover for the inclusive (theologically grounded) approach to the rights and duties of nations. For example, the third overarching principle that guided the bishops’ pastoral and policy recommendations is that “sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.” The explication that follows reiterates the right but introduces a radical caveat: “The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth.” In this case, the disavowal immediately follows the affirmation and lays the foundation for making territorial autonomy contingent on furthering the common good. The pastoral letter also features qualified affirmations that assume a more elongated affirmation/disavowal form. The policy recommendations about humane border enforcement begin with a two-sentence affirmation of the right to control borders, but (by the third sentence) introduce dissent: “As explained above, the Catholic Church recognizes the right and responsibility of sovereign nations to control their borders and to ensure the security interests of their citizens. Therefore, we accept the legitimate role of the U.S. and Mexican governments in intercepting undocumented migrants. . . . We do not accept, however, some of the policies and tactics that our governments have employed to meet this shared responsibility.” The relative strength of this critique derives from its connection to Pope John Paul’s conception of solidarity, outlined in texts such as Ecclesia in America and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, which are both cited directly in the pastoral letter. As theologian Graziano Battistella notes, John Paul argued that “interdependence must be transformed into solidarity,” and “stronger and richer nations must have a sense of moral responsibility for other nations.” Although such a perspective affirms the right to control borders, it also “gives priority to the underprivileged by establishing that solidarity is not an option, but a duty.” In comparison, opposition to the specific policies and tactics addressed in the second example has a more attenuated relationship to Catholic social teaching, and so has less force and specificity. Nonetheless, any challenge to the reigning enforcement regime was noteworthy given the impending absorption of Immigration and Naturalization Service into the Department of Homeland Security.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 62

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

63

In addition to the pattern identified above, the qualified affirmation is expressed through a compositional structure that makes abiding by the common good a precondition for territorial autonomy. Tracing this position back to founding documents on migration in Catholic social teaching, the bishops document the consistent focus on the state’s rights and duties regarding immigration: “While recognizing the right of the sovereign state to control its borders, Exsul Familia also establishes that this right is not absolute . . . the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of receiving countries.” The obligation to the common good, whether at the level of individual dignity, family unity, or “equity at a global level,” complicates the singular focus on US interests that defines contemporary political debates over immigration policy. Indeed, the accommodation of migration flows functions as a litmus test for abiding by the common good. The rationale underpinning the call to respect the human dignity and rights of migrants affirms territorial autonomy as a “complement” to the common good: “The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good. It also recognizes the rights of human persons to migrate. . . . These teaching complement each other.” This complementary relationship obliges all states to uphold human rights; however, nations with economic wealth have additional responsibilities: “More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migrant flows.” Territorial authority is affirmed, but with a host of caveats and obligations.

Conclusion While Strangers No Longer serves as a grounding point for contemporary Catholic activism on immigration, the growing archive of interdenominational statements in support of immigrant rights reveals a pressing need for additional scholarship on the intersection of religion, activism, and immigration politics. As with the civil rights movement, diverse religious traditions inform local controversies and national debates in complex ways that can enrich both the study of social movements and immigration rhetoric. For example, when clergy challenge political leaders, as they have done in Alabama and Arizona, in what ways do they express moral authority, and at what cost? How do different organizational structures and religious traditions enable and constrain interdenominational identification and coalition building? In what ways can

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 63

8/5/15 2:04 PM

64

|

activism and public campaigns

religious leaders provide political momentum (or cover) for legislators seeking comprehensive immigration reform? Indeed, in the days prior to President Obama’s second inauguration, evangelical leaders representing more than one hundred thousand churches launched the “I Was a Stranger” campaign, encouraging congregants to participate in forty days of prayer, reflection, and advocacy in support of immigration policies “consistent with biblical values.” As clergy increasingly seek to alter the political debate about immigration policy, will the focus be on reconceiving the stranger or the state? The expansive view of human dignity and the reconception of sovereignty in Strangers No Longer advanced an affirmative case for accommodating migration flows. In so doing, the USCCB and CEM denationalized the immigration issue by making the binational perspective normative. The pastoral letter does not address border militarization explicitly. It does, however, link human dignity, human rights, and labor protections in ways that legitimate economic development and undermine national security as the most pressing exigency informing immigration policy. Most important, the document lays out a moral framework that is not only a stark alternative to the conservative politico-economic paradigm underlying border militarization, but also a spark for an inclusive, faithfilled conception of sovereignty guiding immigration policy and enforcement. note s 1. See Leo R. Chavez, The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008). 2. Lina Newton, Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 164. 3. Douglas Massey and Magaly Sánchez, Brokered Boundaries: Creating Immigrant Identity in Anti-Immigrant Times (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2012), 78. 4. KVIA, “Read Full Statement by Bishop Seitz Before Congressional Committee on Immigration of Unaccompanied Children,” http://www.kvia.com/news/read-full-statement -by-bishop-seitz-before-congressional-committee-on-immigration-of-unaccompanied-children/ 26658092, accessed July 15, 2014. 5. See, for example, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, God’s Heart Has No Borders: How Religious Activists Are Working for Immigrant Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008); and Luisa Heredia, “From Prayer to Protest: The Immigrant Rights Movement and the Catholic Church,” in Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight for Inclusion in Twenty-First Century America, ed. Kim Voss and Irene Bloemraad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 101–22. On the theological impact, see Todd Scribner and J. Kevin Appleby, eds., On “Strangers No Longer”: Perspectives on the Historic U.S.-Mexican Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on Migration (New York: Paulist Press, 2013). 6. Mark Ensalaco, “Illegal Immigration, the Bishops, and the Laity: ‘Strangers No Longer,’” in Scribner and Appleby, On “Strangers No Longer,” 251. 7. Ibid., 252.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 64

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

65

8. Karma Chávez, “Border Interventions: The Need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 48. 9. Ibid., 50. 10. Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana (1952), Papal Encyclicals Online, http://www .papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm, accessed January 25, 2013. 11. International Catholic Migration Commission, “Mission and Vision,” http://www .icmc.net/mission-and-vision, accessed January 25, 2013. 12. Benedict XVI, “Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees,” 2012, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/ migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121012_world-migrants-day_en.html, accessed January 25, 2013. 13. New York Times, “The Gospel vs. H.R. 4437,” March 3, 2006, http://www.nytimes .com/2006/03/03/opinion/03fri1.html, accessed January 24, 2013. 14. Rachel L. Swarns, “Rift on Immigration Widens for Conservatives and Cardinals,” New York Times, Week in Review, March 19, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/ weekinreview/19swarns.html, accessed January 24, 2013. 15. For background on the drafting process, see Patricia Lefevere, “U.S., Mexican Bishops Join Voices on Migration,” National Catholic Reporter, November 22, 2002, http://natcath.org/ NCR_Online/archives2/2002d/112202/112202e.htm, accessed July 31, 2014. 16. John Paul II, Ecclesia in America, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in- america_en.html, accessed January 1, 2013. 17. Leonard Martinez, “On the Journey of Hope; Catholic Bishops Take Up Border Immigration Problems,” El Paso Times, February 7, 2003. 18. Quoted in Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, “U.S., Mexican Bishops Urge Bush to Resume Migration Negotiations,” Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2003, http://articles.latimes.com/ 2003/jan/25/nation/na-immig25, accessed January 13, 2013. 19. Ibid. 20. Heredia, “From Prayer to Protest,” 107. 21. Quoted in Lisa Miller, “Why Are Evangelicals Supporting Immigration Reform?,” Washington Post, June 22, 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012–06–22/national/ 35461786_1_immigration-reform-white-evangelicals-evangelical-base, accessed January 24, 2013. 22. According to Todd Scribner, the education outreach coordinator for migration and refugee services at the USCCB, “As a pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer is not morally binding in the same way as an encyclical or even a Doctrinal Declaration made by the body of bishops of the United States.” In comparison to doctrinal declarations, which “are binding upon the Catholic faithful within the dioceses of the territory of the USCCB, and should be adhered to with a religious submission of mind,” a pastoral letter like Strangers No Longer “does not carry this kind of binding authority” but offers “pastoral guidance regarding some particular issue or issues affecting the Christian faithful entrusted to their care, and, at times, to all people of good will.” Scribner, e-mail message to author, July 30, 2014. 23. Camilla J. Kari, Public Witness: The Pastoral Letters of the American Catholic Bishops (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004), x–xi. 24. Ibid., xi. 25. Ibid., 149. 26. Ensalaco, “Illegal Immigration,” 274–75. 27. Carol J. Jablonski, “Aggiornamento and the American Catholic Bishops: A Rhetoric of Institutional Continuity and Change,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 430. 28. Steven R. Goldzwig and George Cheney, “The U. S. Catholic Bishops on Nuclear Arms: Corporate Advocacy, Role Redefinition, and Rhetorical Adaptation,” Central States

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 65

8/5/15 2:04 PM

66

|

activism and public campaigns

Speech Journal 35 (1984): 8–23; J. Michael Hogan, “Managing Dissent in the Catholic Church: A Reinterpretation of the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 400–415; George Cheney and Steven R. Goldzwig, “ ‘Locating’ the Bishops’ Advocacy: A Response to Hogan,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 307. 29. John Lynch, “Institution and Imprimatur: Institutional Rhetoric and the Failure of the Catholic Church’s Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 8 (2005): 384–85. 30. Adriaan C. van Oss, Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala, 1524–1821 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 181. 31. David A. Badillo, Latinos and the New Immigrant Church (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 4. 32. Timothy M. Matovina, Latino Catholicism: Transformation in America’s Largest Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Timothy Matovina and Gary Riebe-Estrella, Horizons of the Sacred: Mexican Traditions in U.S. Catholicism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002); Badillo, Latinos. 33. Badillo, Latinos, xvi. 34. Matovina, Latino Catholicism, 247. 35. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “The Road to Emmaus: A Reflection on Conversion, Communion, and Solidarity,” 2003, http://nccbuscc.org/mrs/nmw/emmaus.shtml, accessed January 25, 2013. 36. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope; A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003), par. 2. 37. Ibid., par. 56. 38. Catholic Church, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Ecclesia in America.” 39. Criterion, “Sex Abuse, International Concerns Dominate Bishops’ Meeting,” November 22, 2002, 1, 7, http://www.archindy.org/criterion/fi les/2002/pdfs/20021122.pdf. 40. USCCB and CEM, Strangers No Longer, par. 55. 41. Hogan, “Managing Dissent,” 410. 42. United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 1948, http://www.un.org/ en/documents/udhr/index.shtml, accessed January 25, 2013. 43. Paul VI, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1965). 44. Julie Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008), 63. 45. Wendy Hesford, Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms (Durham: Duke University Press, 2011), 5. 46. USCCB and CEM, Strangers No Longer, par. 37. 47. Ibid., pars. 37–38. 48. Ibid., par. 44. 49. Ibid., par. 77. 50. Ibid., par. 104. 51. Ibid., par. 35. 52. Anne Demo, “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Through the Documentary Lens,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 197–212. 53. Graziano Battistella, “From Policies of Exclusion to Policies Based on Human Rights,” in A Promised Land, a Perilous Journey: Theological Perspectives on Migration, ed. Daniel Groody and Gioacchino Campes (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 177. 54. Dominique Peridans, “Center for Immigration Studies,” Happy National Migration Week! (2013), http://cis.org/peridans/happy-national-migration-week, accessed January 25, 2013.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 66

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

67

55. USCCB and CEM, Strangers No Longer, par. 36. 56. Ibid., par. 36. 57. Ibid., par. 78. 58. Battistella, “From Policies of Exclusion,” 189. 59. Ibid. 60. The pastoral letter was issued by the USCCB and CEM on January 22, 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security absorbed the INS on March 1, 2003. 61. USCCB and CEM, Strangers No Longer, par. 30. 62. United Nations General Assembly, “United Nations Millennium Declaration,” 2000, http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm, accessed January 25, 2013. 63. USCCB and CEM, Strangers No Longer, par. 39. 64. Ibid., par. 36. 65. Evangelical Immigration Table, “‘I Was a Stranger’: Challenge Your Legislators,” 2013, http://evangelicalimmigrationtable.com/iwasastranger/challenge-your-legislators/, accessed January 25, 2013.

bibl io gr a ph y Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo. “U.S., Mexican Bishops Urge Bush to Resume Migration Negotiations.” Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2003. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/25/ nation/na-immig25. Accessed January 13, 2013. Badillo, David A. Latinos and the New Immigrant Church. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Battistella, Graziano. “From Policies of Exclusion to Policies Based on Human Rights.” In A Promised Land, a Perilous Journey: Theological Perspectives on Migration, ed. Daniel Groody and Gioacchino Campes, 177–91. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Benedict XVI. “Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees.” 2012. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/ migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121012_world-migrants- day_en.html. Accessed January 25, 2013. Chávez, Karma. “Border Interventions: The Need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the USMexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 48–64. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Chavez, Leo R. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. Cheney, George, and Steven R. Goldzwig. “‘Locating’ the Bishops’ Advocacy: A Response to Hogan.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 307. Criterion. “Sex Abuse, International Concerns Dominate Bishops’ Meeting.” November 22, 2002. http://www.archindy.org/criterion/fi les/2002/pdfs/20021122.pdf. Demo, Anne. “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Th rough the Documentary Lens.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 197–212. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Ensalaco, Mark. “Illegal Immigration, the Bishops, and the Laity: ‘Strangers No Longer.’ ” In On “Strangers No Longer”: Perspectives on the Historic U.S.-Mexican Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on Migration, ed. Todd Scribner and J. Kevin Appleby, 251–80. New York: Paulist Press, 2013.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 67

8/5/15 2:04 PM

68

|

activism and public campaigns

Evangelical Immigration Table. “‘I Was a Stranger’: Challenge Your Legislators.” 2013. http:// evangelicalimmigrationtable.com/iwasastranger/challenge-your-legislators/. Accessed January 25, 2013. Goldzwig, Steven R., and George Cheney. “The U.S. Catholic Bishops on Nuclear Arms: Corporate Advocacy, Role Redefinition, and Rhetorical Adaptation.” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 8–23. Heredia, Luisa. “From Prayer to Protest: The Immigrant Rights Movement and the Catholic Church.” In Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight for Inclusion in Twenty-First Century America, ed. Kim Voss and Irene Bloemraad, 101–22. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Hesford, Wendy. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Hogan, J. Michael. “Managing Dissent in the Catholic Church: A Reinterpretation of the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 400–415. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. God’s Heart Has No Borders: How Religious Activists Are Working for Immigrant Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. International Catholic Migration Commission. “Mission and Vision.” http://www.icmc.net/ mission-and-vision. Accessed January 25, 2013. Jablonski, Carol J. “Aggiornamento and the American Catholic Bishops: A Rhetoric of Institutional Continuity and Change.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 416–32. John Paul II. Ecclesia in America. 1999. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html. Accessed January 1, 2013. Kari, Camilla J. Public Witness: The Pastoral Letters of the American Catholic Bishops. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. KVIA. “Read Full Statement by Bishop Seitz Before Congressional Committee on Immigration of Unaccompanied Children.” http://www.kvia.com/news/read-full-statement-by -bishop-seitz-before-congressional- committee- on-immigration- of-unaccompanied -children/26658092. Accessed July 15, 2014. Lefevere, Patricia. “U.S., Mexican Bishops Join Voices on Migration.” National Catholic Reporter, November 22, 2002. http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2002d/112202/ 112202e.htm. Accessed July 31, 2014. Lynch, John. “Institution and Imprimatur: Institutional Rhetoric and the Failure of the Catholic Church’s Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 8 (2005): 383–403. Martinez, Leonard. “On the Journey of Hope; Catholic Bishops Take Up Border Immigration Problems.” El Paso Times, February 7, 2003. Massey, Douglas, and Magaly Sánchez. Brokered Boundaries: Creating Immigrant Identity in Anti-Immigrant Times. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2012. Matovina, Timothy M. Latino Catholicism: Transformation in America’s Largest Church. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Matovina, Timothy, and Gary Riebe-Estrella. Horizons of the Sacred: Mexican Traditions in U.S. Catholicism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002. Mertus, Julie. Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. Miller, Lisa. “Why Are Evangelicals Supporting Immigration Reform?” Washington Post, June 22, 2012. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-22/national/35461786_1_immigration -reform-white-evangelicals-evangelical-base. Accessed January 24, 2013. Newton, Lina. Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform. New York: New York University Press, 2008.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 68

8/5/15 2:04 PM

faithful sovereignty

|

69

New York Times. “The Gospel vs. H.R. 4437.” March 3, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/03/03/opinion/03fri1.html. Accessed January 24, 2013. Oss, Adriaan C. van. Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala, 1524–1821. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1965. Peridans, Dominique. “Center for Immigration Studies.” Happy National Migration Week! 2013. http://cis.org/peridans/happy-national-migration-week. Accessed January 25, 2013. Pius XII. Exsul Familia Nazarethana. 1952. Papal Encyclicals Online. http://www.papal encyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm. Accessed January 25, 2013. Scribner, Todd, and J. Kevin Appleby, eds. On “Strangers No Longer”: Perspectives on the Historic U.S.-Mexican Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on Migration. New York: Paulist Press, 2013. Swarns, Rachel L. “Rift on Immigration Widens for Conservatives and Cardinals.” New York Times, Week in Review, March 19, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekin review/19swarns.html. Accessed January 24, 2013. United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 1948. http://www.un.org/en/ documents/udhr/index.shtml. Accessed January 25, 2013. United Nations General Assembly. “United Nations Millennium Declaration.” 2000. http:// www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm. Accessed January 25, 2013. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “The Road to Emmaus: A Reflection on Conversion, Communion, and Solidarity.” 2003. http://nccbuscc.org/mrs/nmw/emmaus .shtml. Accessed January 25, 2013. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano. Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope; A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 69

8/5/15 2:04 PM

3

protecting lgbt migrants The Rhetoric of Identity and the Expansion of the Prison-Industrial Complex Karma R. Chávez

Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) filed a petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on behalf of thirteen gay and trans individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in April 2011. The Chicago-based NIJC provides legal services and advocacy, and works to ensure “human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.” Its LGBT Immigrant Rights Initiative, which filed the complaints with DHS, seeks protections for LGBT “and HIV-positive immigrants and those who are victims of persecution in their home countries because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Most of the thirteen claimants, identified in the copy for public distribution only by a pseudonymous first name—and in some versions of the letter, only by their initials—are LGBT people who fled persecution in their home country and sought some form of immigration relief in the United States. The complaints note severe abuses and violations of gender and sexual minorities, “including sexual assault, denial of medical and mental health treatment, arbitrary long-term solitary confinement, and frequent harassment by officers and facility personnel.” Complaints of this nature implicating the US immigration system are not new. In 2000, a guard at the Krome Avenue Detention Center in Miami raped Mexican trans migrant Christina Madrazo twice, and she sued the government for damages. In July 2007, Victoria Arellano, an undocumented, HIVpositive trans migrant from Mexico died while in an ICE prison after being denied medications. Taken into custody in May in perfect health, and on a regimen of medications, Arellano was only brought to the hospital after days of being nearly completely incapacitated with pain, uncontrollable diarrhea,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 70

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

71

and vomiting. Fellow detainees staged a protest, chanting “hospital,” and refused to line up for the evening’s count until she was taken in. She died three days later, chained to her hospital bed. In the wake of Arellano’s death, LGBT and immigrant rights organizations alike expressed outrage at ICE’s horrific actions. When Arellano’s mother, prior to her daughter’s death, sought help from many of these organizations, she reports being denied any assistance. By advocating on behalf of people’s lives, the NIJC differentiates itself from other organizations that respond only to the tragedy of death. The NIJC also shows that such violence is commonplace. To be sure, violent conditions exist for all imprisoned persons. LGBT people, especially those who are trans or gender-nonconforming, face unique risks and threats when incarcerated in criminal or civil detention facilities. Organizations like Just Detention International have long argued that LGBT people are among the most vulnerable to rape and sexual assault in prisons. The NJIC’s petition, the subsequent media attention, and the supporting petitions on behalf of “vulnerable populations” are thus important for illuminating situations that are generally hidden from public view and outside public concern. Additionally, these petitions’ focus on LGBT migrants as a unique category of people who are abused and violated in distinctive ways within jails and prisons enables coalition building among LGBT activists, immigration and prisoner rights activists, and justice organizations and activists. Finally, the use of the identity marker LGBT interpellates a population of LGBTidentified people who are not imprisoned—and may not know anyone who is—as interested and aware subjects regarding abuses inflicted on other LGBT people. These petitions to DHS, then, reflect concern and outrage for a particular subset of migrants, a subset that was necessary to mark in order to draw the rhetorical support of Lambda Legal and signatories like the Human Rights Campaign. Susan Zaeske has shown how petitions historically have provided a means of collective political subjectivity for people, particularly women, who otherwise had no political voice. Those represented in these petitions, too, do not have the rights of citizens, including many of the protections and rights to due process granted to those imprisoned in criminal facilities. Those detained in immigration prisons are in a liminal situation, often in their last stop on the way to deportation, and are usually not convicted of any crime at all. Those being petitioned are also under little obligation to address the complaints in the manner asked of them. The petitions’ audience, DHS, imposes rigid constraints

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 71

8/5/15 2:04 PM

72

|

activism and public campaigns

on the sources of rhetorical invention available to the petitioners. Petitions are a limited rhetorical form within the context of the immigration system. Furthermore, inherent in these identity-based pleas are other troubling implications. The NIJC does not question whether imprisoning migrants is a viable, ethical, and legitimate part of a humane immigration policy. Under the Obama administration, the DHS budget, the number of deportations, and the length of detentions that many migrants face as they go through various immigration proceedings have continued to grow. Such policies have augmented the prison system and have had devastating impacts on all marginalized people. As Dean Spade, Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and others suggest, demands for prison reform that do not fundamentally challenge prison structures are often used to justify the continued existence and expansion of prisons and repressive state policy, rather than promote the reduction or abolition of prisons altogether. In addition to being a catalyst for unlikely alliances, and for recognizing those normally outside public view, like prisoners, the use of the identity “LGBT” may naturalize a distinction between worthy and vulnerable sexual and gender minorities and other imprisoned people, whose experiences and identities render them unintelligible. In a political milieu in which LGBT rights in the United States have been defined primarily by inclusionary aims, which are then taken up as the benchmark for LGBT rights around the world, the NIJC’s use of LGBT-focused language and arguments could also have unintended consequences for LGBT people around the globe. The tension between the interventions that the petitions make and the potential far-reaching consequences of the petitions’ arguments is not easily remedied. Yet these petitions reveal possible ruptures, creating space for queer and radical critiques of the immigration prison system. In this chapter, I examine the petitions filed by the NIJC, Lambda Legal, and congressional representatives to the DHS to reveal the limitations of the petition as a contemporary rhetorical form of redress of grievances in the immigration system, and further to highlight the work of identity-based pleas in upholding the very systems they seek to challenge. I begin with a discussion of the expansion of the immigration prison system and the system’s unique impacts on queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming people. Such context is necessary because rhetoric scholars have amassed an impressive body of scholarship regarding the prison-industrial complex, but little of that scholarship has attended to queer issues or immigration.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 72

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

73

Queer People and the Prison-Industrial Complex The rhetorical connections between queers and criminality run deep in US culture. As increasingly documented by scholars and activists, queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming people, especially if they are poor and/or of color, are very likely to be profiled and caught up in the prison-industrial complex (PIC). “PIC” is a term that Angela Y. Davis argues is strategically “designed precisely to resonate with the term military-industrial complex,” given “the extent to which both complexes earn profit while producing the means to maim and kill human beings and devour social resources.” Amnesty International’s 2005 report Stonewalled describes the pervasiveness of law enforcement profiling of LGBT people, especially trans people, those who are poor or working class, and people of color. Law enforcement officials regularly assume that trans and gender-nonconforming women are prostitutes, or otherwise criminal, when they engage in daily behavior such as buying groceries or walking to catch a bus. Ongoing and systemic police profiling of queer people, coupled with a higher likelihood of poverty and homelessness among queer people, especially of color and gender-nonconforming, means that more queer people are at risk of being harassed and abused by police before they are imprisoned. Being targeted as criminal by police also puts such people at higher risk of eventually being caught up in some aspect of the prison-industrial complex. If one speaks English with a non-US “accent,” doesn’t speak English at all, or frequents parts of town where immigrants are known to go, this compounds the risk. The array of negative rhetoric that positions immigrants as illegal and alien adds to this criminalizing context. Some people also continue to believe that queer and trans people are dishonest or deceptive about their identities and behaviors, therefore making them more likely to engage in criminal activity. The media sensationalize queers as criminals, including serial killers such as Aileen Wuornos or Jeffrey Dahmer. Within broader public imaginaries, queers and queer sex/desire are associated with criminalized behaviors ranging from public sex to pedophilia. Even with the decriminalization of private, consensual homosexual sex between adults in Lawrence v. Texas, police continue systematically to criminalize queer people. Once inside prisons, jails, or detention centers, the threat of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse is immense for queer people, whether at the hands of institution officials or those of other incarcerated people. Queer people face this situation whether housed in a criminal prison or an immigration prison,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 73

8/5/15 2:04 PM

74

|

activism and public campaigns

which are often one and the same—many immigration prisons are run by private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and DHS contracts with local jail facilities. In short, the criminal punishment and immigration systems are hostile to queer and trans people. In the next section, I offer a cursory discussion of the development of the US system of immigration detention in order to contextualize the expansiveness of the system that the NIJC petitions for change.

US Immigration Detention: A Brief History Violating US immigration law is a civil, not a criminal, offense. Still, in the past two decades, with the expansion of the private prison industry, border militarization, and heightened fears associated with national security, incarcerating migrants for indefinite periods of time while they are processed has become business as usual. On any given day, more than thirty thousand migrants are incarcerated in federal, state, local, and private facilities throughout the United States, resulting in the imprisonment of roughly four hundred thousand people each year. Various forms of detention have been used to control non-US citizens since the early days of the Republic, but the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act authorized the attorney general to detain noncitizens. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, owing to political unrest in the Caribbean and Central America, a large influx of migrants arrived at US borders, which incited panic among the citizenry. The dilemma of what to do with the migrants was especially vexing with regard to those arriving from Cuba, given that they had fled communism, a political condition from which the United States had obligated itself to offer refuge. The “Mariel Boatlift,” as it is now known, led the attorney general and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to open several new detention centers or camps in states around the United States. Haitians also fled in significant numbers; in the early years of his presidency, Ronald Reagan ordered the mandatory detention of all Haitian migrants arriving at US borders, mandating that the US Coast Guard divert any people found at sea to a processing center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In 1982, the INS took over the Krome Avenue Detention Center just outside Miami as an immigration detention facility. In 1983, the INS contracted for the first time with private prison corporation CCA, and in 1987 with the private corporation GEO Group (then Wackenhut Services, Inc.) to

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 74

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

75

provide detention services. Other facilities were built, converted, or contracted to detain migrants during this time. Economic downturn, the “War on Drugs” and other get-tough-on-crime policies, and the influx of migrants fleeing political unrest south of US borders congealed as a complex situation with regard to immigration in the 1980s. This, in part, led to the passing of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which is commonly lauded for providing amnesty to hundreds of thousands of long-term undocumented residents. It also cracked down on future migrants, heightened border militarization, and added a provision to immigration law to summarily remove “criminal” aliens—all factors that would lead to further criminalization and detention of migrants. The Migration Policy Institute reports that immigration detention increased sixfold between 1994 and 2008, as INS housed 6,785 beds per night in 1994, and ICE 33,400 in 2008. Popular thinking suggests that the events of September 11, 2001, and the development of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 are responsible for the shifts in law that have exacerbated the existence of immigration prisons; but it is clear that detention has been growing in the United States for decades. Actions by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have intensified these trends. Although complaints have been made over the years on behalf of general populations detained in immigration prisons, and even individual queer or trans people, the NIJC’s formal complaint on behalf of multiple people incarcerated in several facilities across the United States marks the first far-reaching case filed on behalf of LGBT-identified people. In the next section, I analyze the NIJC’s, Lambda Legal’s, and congressional representatives’ petitions to the DHS and related agencies. The rhetoric in these petitions reveals the tensions between the significant intervention being made and the unintended consequences of the petitioners’ rhetorical choices. More specifically, the petitions engender a contradictory rhetoric that conflates abuser and protector at the same time that it refuses to name the agent of abuse. Still, spaces exist within the petition to engage in a radical critique of the immigration prison system that is not reliant on liberal logics of identity and inclusion.

The Petition and the Rhetoric of Immigration Prison Reform Since the early days of the US Republic, petitions have been an important part of citizens’ engagement in the public sphere. By definition, as Zaeske maintains,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 75

8/5/15 2:04 PM

76

|

activism and public campaigns

a petition is filed by or on behalf of those with less power and addressed to those with more power. The petition has served as an important tool for the development of political subjectivities for those marginalized from typical public engagement. Women in particular have petitioned the federal government for actions against vulnerable groups such as slaves and American Indians. Historically, petitions have had varying degrees of success in demanding change. In recent years, with the advent of online petitions and the flood of them on issues as various as one could possibly imagine, commentators question whether the petition has lost its efficacy as a method of seeking redress. And yet petitions continue to be used as a central tool for immigration rights advocates garnering nationwide support for particular immigrants who have significant family ties in the United States, or who are otherwise deemed exceptional enough to merit advocacy. The NIJC petition is more elaborate than most online petitions. It and its supporting letters follow the traditional form of a petition, including naming the complaint and charging the offending body, detailing the specific problems that necessitate the petition, and offering steps for addressing the grievance(s). The NIJC’s letter titled “Submission of Civil Rights Complaints Regarding Mistreatment and Abuse of Sexual Minorities in DHS Custody” summarizes the thirteen complaints and offers recommendations for “incremental improvements.” The petition letter, addressed to Officer Margo Schlanger, charges the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) to investigate the horrific violations that claimants experience while in ICE custody, develop and implement policies, and oversee the implementation of those policies. The Lambda Legal letter is titled “Civil Rights Complaints Filed by the National Immigrant Justice Center,” and is addressed to Schlanger, (former) DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, and (former) ICE director John Morton. The thirty-eight congressional representatives address their letter to Napolitano and then Attorney General Eric Holder. I focus on the petition letters accompanying and summarizing the complaints, rather than the statements detailing the abuses, because it is in the petition letters that the NIJC and supporters frame their arguments and concerns, and lay out their recommendations for reform. After describing the complaints, the opening statement of the NIJC letter states, “Although we recommend several incremental improvements, DHS cannot, consistent with its constitutional obligations, continue to detain vulnerable individuals whom they are unable to protect.” The opening statement provides an illuminating look into the NIJC’s broader perspective, which is supported by the other letter writers. On a basic level, the NIJC’s language

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 76

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

77

presumes that it is legitimate to detain migrants, as long as they can be protected. The definitions of “protection” offered are generally vague, although the congressional representatives’ letter contends that zero tolerance for sexual assault, along with standards for “the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment” of such assaults, will provide protections. The representatives focus almost entirely on the issue of sexual abuse as the type of violence from which LGBT people need protection. Although the demands for protection are in some ways laudable, one of the most troubling parts of the complainants’ statements is the recurring reference to microlevel, individualized choices made by facility officials (e.g., officers, deputies, wardens). Complaints range from allegations of outright physical, sexual, and verbal abuse at the hands of prison officials to claims that officials ignored, ridiculed, or otherwise made light of abuse. For example, one complaint alleges, “After [Juan] suffered a sexual assault motivated in part by his perceived effeminacy, a guard at the same facility told him publicly, ‘Walk like a man, not like a gay man.’ (Otero County Detention Center, New Mexico).” The complaints also identify abuses resulting from systemic features such as inconsistent and ineffective medical care, or the widespread use of solitary confinement to “protect” LGBT people from the general prison population. Consider the following situation: “[Delfino] was held in segregation for four months, justifying their decision on the basis that [Delfino] presented ‘effeminately.’ Facility staff refused to provide [Delfino] a Bible and permitted him only one hour of recreation—in a cold nine-by-thirteen-foot cell—per day. (Houston Processing Center, Texas).” Such instances of abuse should not be framed as matters of ICE’s inability to protect prisoners. At best, such instances reflect ICE’s unwillingness, at a systemic level, to provide such protection. At worst, these claims reflect ICE’s intentional and brutal abuse of those in its custody, at both the individual and structural levels. The NIJC’s refusal to directly confront the many causes of the violence described in the claims implies that the violence results from a mere inability to protect—a sort of “bad apples” argument common in instances of prison abuse. This kind of argument may keep ICE and DHS officials from becoming defensive about abuse allegations. Naming problems without also naming adequate and accurate causes is unlikely to lead to conditions in which incarcerated migrants are actually safe. Furthermore, after introducing the “harsh mistreatment and abuse” that claimants receive, the NIJC letter writers remark, “the complainants’ treatment was not reasonably related to any legitimate safety or security objective” (emphasis added). Given that the NIJC has confirmed abuse, including sexual assault, it is unclear,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 77

8/5/15 2:04 PM

78

|

activism and public campaigns

beyond the use of legal language, why the word “reasonably” is included in that sentence. Under what conditions might sexual assault be reasonably related to safety and security objectives? The seemingly strange framing of these complaints reflects the naturalization of criminalization within the petitions. Immigration prisons are not intended to be punitive, a point the petitioners clearly make. Still, while denouncing specific instances of abuse, the petitioners assume that imprisonment is a just and appropriate response to migrants in the liminal legal space that has landed them in immigration prison. The petitioners’ framing doesn’t challenge the criminalization of migrants; instead, it affirms it. Such an assumption can perhaps be partially explained by examining the relationship between what INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence have called the nonprofit industrial complex (NPIC)— the system of professional nonprofit organizations that lead the agendas of most liberal causes in the United States—and the PIC. Dylan Rodríguez locates the NPIC as a corollary of the PIC, arguing that the PIC overtly represses and brutalizes dissent, while the NPIC manages and absorbs it. The NIJC’s rhetoric offers insight into the two complementary functions of the NPIC and the PIC. The NIJC, as an immigration-oriented nonprofit organization that provides legal services to immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, has working relationships with ICE and DHS in order to ensure these agencies’ access to clients and their whereabouts. To maintain these relationships and achieve some reforms, the NIJC must be very careful. By using an identity-based group such as LGBT people to draw attention to the brutality of immigration prisons, the NIJC can both critique abuses without critiquing the system and rally those outside prisons around the narrower issue of identitybased reforms. Queer dissent that might challenge the legitimacy of the PIC, for instance, is channeled into mechanisms such as the NIJC petition, and the systemic brutality of the PIC is not confronted. Even when Lambda Legal outwardly states that the problems reported are “systemic,” the prison system itself remains beyond critique. Only a select group of people have been identified as victims worth Lambda Legal’s attention. Exceptional imprisoned individuals who have access to organizations like Lambda Legal or the NIJC may receive protection as a result of the petitions, but many others undoubtedly will not. Naming the brutalization of LGBT people draws attention to them as a unique identity group suffering unique abuses. These abuses are very serious, and a queer critique of the PIC is imperative. Ignored in the pursuit of this imperative is that imprisoned migrants of all genders and sexual identities have experienced horrific treatment, as has been well documented.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 78

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

79

Using LGBT identity personalizes the brutality and makes it more politically relevant in a climate in which mainstream nonprofit groups in the United States have put an inclusionary LGBT rights agenda on the public’s radar. Thus the NIJC’s is an expedient political strategy that, like the mainstream LGBT movement, asks for narrow reforms. This personalizing of brutality also operates through logic akin to what Dana L. Cloud describes as therapeutic discourse, a rhetorical strategy that reduces systemic political and economic injustice to private and personal concerns. As Dean Spade and Yasmin Nair have observed, focusing solely on identity without attending to the deeper structural violence that brutalizes people regardless of their identity is a dangerous long-term strategy. For example, because the term “prison-industrial complex” is meant to echo the idea of the military-industrial complex, talking about immigration prison reforms in isolation from larger conversations about border militarization turns attention away from the abuses of all oppressed peoples. Talking only of one identity group obfuscates the relationship between the mistreatment of migrants in prisons and the state’s prevalent militaristic targeting of migrants outside prisons, including raids and checkpoints, racial profiling, and electronic identity verification. Such militarization continues to encroach upon cities and towns far away from the US-Mexico border. LGBT people, especially people of color, poor people, and gender-nonconforming folks, are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of militarization. Contextualizing their intervention in this scope would undoubtedly be difficult for nonprofit organizations, whose work cannot be entirely oppositional to state apparatuses. Furthermore, such context would be challenging when using the rhetorical form of the petition, because in this instance the audience for the petition and the culprits named in the petition are in many ways one and the same. This problem emerges elsewhere in the petitions. While the NIJC petition provides concrete examples of each type of abuse, the framing removes direct culpability from ICE and other federal officials. For example, in the section on sexual assault, the letter states that, as in the past, “DHS officers and contracted staff were unable or unwilling to protect or provide counseling services to victims of sexual abuse.” In the two examples of sexual assault, however, one of the cases does not name the perpetrator and the other alleges that a guard sexually assaulted a prisoner: “T was sexually assaulted by a guard while in segregation. Subsequent to this assault, she was only provided with cursory mental health counseling despite experiencing serious trauma. Following this incident she was granted Withholding of Removal but remained in ICE custody for a further three months. During this time she

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 79

8/5/15 2:04 PM

80

|

activism and public campaigns

suffered another sexual assault at the same facility. (Eloy Detention Center, Arizona).” The framing of “unable or unwilling” directs attention away from the fact that a representative of the institution committed at least one of the crimes. When the letter writers discuss the woefully inadequate medical care that immigration prisoners receive, they explain, “HIV-positive individuals in DHS custody experience the denial of these rights.” Here, too, the petitioners do not name the agent who is doing the denying. Instead, the letters imply that the denial of rights is merely experienced, suggesting that no agent is directly culpable of denying those rights. Yet in the excerpt quoted from the complaint itself, it is clear who inflicts the abuse: [Steve] describes how he was transported to a doctor’s appointment for an HIV checkup while his feet, waist, and hands were shackled. A doctor and a nurse repeatedly asked the facility officer to remove the shackles so that they could draw blood. The officer refused. [Steve] explained: “Even though the nurses and doctors asked them, that they could not withdraw blood like that, the officers from CCA [Corrections Corporation of America] didn’t care, and they had to take blood from my hand, and even though I cried from pain, they didn’t care.” Having learned of [Steve’s] HIV status, facility staff mocked [Steve]. (Houston Processing Center, Texas). The petitioners’ refusal to name abusers, even as those whom they represent are clear in their indictments, is further demonstrated in the congressional representatives’ letter, which never names DHS or ICE as perpetrators of abuse, only as failed defenders of civil rights. When Lambda Legal names an agent of abuse, it is a generic subject, “detention centers,” and in one instance “detention officials,” who “are often complicit in this [sexual] abuse and perpetrate this abuse.” While Lambda Legal charges DHS by name as the agent for change and protection, it refuses to name DHS or ICE as the culprit. There are instances in which the authors are more explicit in naming ICE as the agent of abuse and mistreatment. For example, the NIJC letter notes that “ICE officials deny hormone treatment to detained transgender individuals,” and “ICE detained a number of the complainants in restrictive segregation.” The letter further contends that “sexual minority individuals experience continuous harassment, humiliation, and discrimination from facility staff and ICE personnel while detained.” These sections read more boldly, and they

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 80

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

81

reveal ruptures in the tone and phrasing of other parts of the letters. In the section on discrimination and abuse, not only does the NIJC name ICE personnel as the perpetrator, but each excerpt names ICE officials as abusers. For example, one excerpt notes, “[Alexis] was repeatedly called a ‘faggot’ by guards, who also made jokes about her dying of AIDS. They singled her out for public searches in which they forced her to remove her outer clothing and mocked her exposed breasts. (Theo Lacy Facility, California).” Such specific naming of agents, supported with explicit evidence from those who suffered abuse, opens space for deeper structural critique. Yet problematic turns of phrase persist. Before moving to recommendations, the NIJC letter states, “Unless and until ICE is able to ensure that the basic dignity of sexual minorities in immigration detention will be respected, these civil rights violations will persist.” In this instance, ICE shifts from being an agent of abuse back to an agent of protection. Moreover, the petitioners reduce to mere violations of civil rights what would be deemed severe crimes in another instance. While some civil rights violations are in fact crimes, the softer rhetoric certainly does not convey the same meaning, referring to these criminal actions as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. The summary of the abuses and violations reflects a disjointed perspective in which ICE is simultaneously named and unnamed as a perpetrator of abuse while unilaterally called upon as the solution. All of the NIJC’s recommendations indicate that ICE’s own internal changes can protect LGBT and HIV-positive people in immigration prisons. Many of the recommendations would certainly point to improving detained people’s lives. Yet they provide little concrete indication as to how ICE should reform itself, usually suggesting the creation of a guideline, mechanism, or procedure for evaluation. While the sections of the NIJC letter summarizing mistreatment and abuse feature the claimants’ words prominently, the recommendations are generic and lack specificity. Lambda Legal demands “a careful and expedited review” of the complaints and the adoption and implementation of unspecified reforms to protect LGBT and HIV-positive people. The congressional representatives urge an immediate investigation of the allegations, a review of DHS contracts, the implementation of adequate oversight, and the quick drafting of standards. Of the three letters, that of the representatives spends the most time requesting that DHS attend to the issue of rape and sexual assault, noting that the protections made by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) must be implemented in immigration facilities in order to protect vulnerable populations. The closest these recommendations for change

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 81

8/5/15 2:04 PM

82

|

activism and public campaigns

come to challenging the legitimacy of immigration prisons is asking DHS to consider alternatives to detention for vulnerable individuals. The congressional representatives’ letter also reiterates the importance of considering alternatives to detention, insisting that if safety without solitary segregation cannot be provided, then this population should be given alternatives. These alternatives are unnamed.

Conclusions Keren Zwick, the supervising attorney for the NIJC’s LGBT Immigrant Rights Initiative, laments in an essay the fact that a year after the petitions, even as the CRCL has investigated the complaints, it has neither released findings nor publicly recognized that LGBT people face unique dangers while in immigration prisons. This despite the fact that, upon public discussion surrounding the petition, the CRCL and most officials in the named individual facilities insisted that they would take the complaints very seriously. Despite Zwick’s chastising of the Obama administration’s response, and her decrying of the deplorable conditions detainees continue to suffer, she notes that “punitive and unnecessary detention of vulnerable immigrants who pose no risk to the community is inhumane, especially for individuals who have strong claims to refugee status.” Like the petitions themselves, Zwick implies the possibility of detention that is both necessary and not punitive, demarcates a division between vulnerable migrants and others, and distinguishes between refugees with legitimate claims to the nation-state and all other migrants, who apparently have none. In December 2012, after years of pressure from groups like the NIJC and a directive from President Obama in May 2012, then DHS secretary Janet Napolitano announced that DHS had submitted a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in confinement facilities, in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.” Given that this concern was the predominant subject of the congressional representatives’ letter, and given the solutions suggested by both Lambda Legal and the NIJC, the legislative development, though still nascent and relatively vague, would seem to be a significant reform. On the other hand, since by many estimates the PREA has done little to “prevent, detect, and respond to” sexual abuse and assault in criminal prisons in the United States, a more cynical reading might conclude that, once again,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 82

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

83

calls for prison reform have only created a mechanism whereby the prisonindustrial complex reinforces its own existence. This petition and the logic it shares with other current and popular perspectives on LGBT rights may lead to unexpected consequences for the very type of vulnerable people the NIJC ostensibly seeks to protect. As the radical queer collective Against Equality argues in its collection Against Equality: Prisons Will Not Protect You, thinking of LGBT issues only in terms of identity misses the broader context of queer and trans oppression, which includes a complex of economic and material conditions. Most liberal LGBT organizations in the United States advocate a national identity-based agenda. As is increasingly documented, countries around the world adopt the LGBT agenda laid out in the United States—by choice and by coercion. In December 2011, when Hillary Clinton announced to the United Nations that gay rights are human rights, she implied that gay rights are so important for the United States that they would become the basis for foreign policy decisions. Many argue that Clinton’s speech was a success of the US LGBT rights movement. Radical queers around the world are more cautious, given that some future foreign aid decisions made in the name of gay rights are likely to be punitive in the sense that countries that do not conform to the United States’ understanding of gay identity and gay rights will be punished economically, if not in other ways. The United Kingdom has also advocated this strategy despite gay rights activists’ suggestion that such policy decisions come with potentially terrifying consequences, putting gay people in the affected areas in more harmful situations than before. Such conditions may not only put LGBT people in horrific conditions at home but may increase pressure on people to flee their home countries. The countries that provide refuge to people with LGBT identities are precisely the same ones that use gay rights as a barometer for making foreign aid and other policy decisions. The petition becomes a mechanism of what many scholars have described as the “new security state” by affirming the US government’s right both to recognize, police, and protect oppressed groups within its borders but also to police other states that might violate such groups’ rights elsewhere. Furthermore, in advocating liberal reforms based on LGBT identity and supporting the state apparatus in the way that the NIJC does, it reproduces, perhaps inadvertently, the very conditions that create the vulnerable populations it seeks to protect in the first place. This means that those advocating LGBT rights within countries like the United States have more stakes to consider in their strategies and approaches. If, as Cloud has argued, therapeutic

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 83

8/5/15 2:04 PM

84

|

activism and public campaigns

discourses that shift attention away from systemic critique as the cause of injustice, directing it toward individuals, are a predominant rhetorical strategy in US culture, and if the identity-based argument of the petitions analyzed herein operates by a similar logic, then this analysis demands attention from scholars not just because of interest in the efficacy and implications of rhetorical forms but also because of the forms’ implicitly problematic liberal rhetoric. Thus queer rhetorical critique that uncovers the norms and contradictions in texts and in rhetorical forms is vital both for ensuring that LGBT people are given full life chances, and also for enacting a truly systemic critique of the complexity of oppression.

note s The author wishes to thank Ryan Conrad, Johanna Hartelius, Sara McKinnon, and Yasmin Nair for assistance in crafting this argument. 1. The original complaint involved thirteen detained individuals. As of December 2012, the number represented in the complaint is seventeen. 2. National Immigrant Justice Center, “About NIJC,” 2011, http://www.immigrantjustice .org/about-nijc. 3. National Immigrant Justice Center, “LGBT Immigrant Rights Initiative,” 2011, http:// www.immigrantjustice.org/lgbt-immigrant-rights-initiative. 4. National Immigrant Justice Center, “Mass Civil Rights Complaint Details Systemic Abuse of Sexual Minorities in U.S. Immigration Detention,” press release, April 13, 2011, http://www.immigrantjustice.org/press_releases/mass- civil- rights- complaint- details -systemic-abuse-sexual-minorities-us-immigration-d. 5. Alisa Solomon, “Trans/Migrant: Christina Madrazo’s All-American Story,” in Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossings, ed. Eithne Luibhéid and Lionel Cantú Jr. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 3–29. 6. Ben Ehrenreich, “Death on Terminal Island: Over Four Years, 74 People Have Died While Being Held by Immigration Officials; Victoria Arellano Was One,” Los Angeles Magazine, September 2008, http://www.lamag.com/featuredarticle.aspx?id=9366&page=1. 7. Andrew Harmon May, “Eight Months in Solitary: Is a Government Turf War over Immigration Detention Putting Transgender Lives at Risk?,” Advocate, May 7, 2012, http:// www.advocate.com/news/news-features/2012/05/07/transgender-detainees-face-challenges -broken-immigration-system?page=0,0; Victoria López, “In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers” (Phoenix: ACLU of Arizona, 2011). 8. This is also true for those in immigration detention. Following Dean Spade, I do not make a distinction between prisons and detention centers, referring to them all as prisons. See Spade, Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of the Law (Boston: South End Press, 2011). 9. Susan Zaeske, Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women’s Political Identity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003). 10. E.g., Stephen John Hartnett, ed., Challenging the Prison-Industrial Complex: Activism, Arts, and Educational Alternatives (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2010); PCARE, “Fighting the Prison-Industrial Complex: A Call to Communication and Cultural Studies Scholars to Change the World,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4, no. 4 (2007): 402–20;

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 84

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

85

John M. Sloop, The Cultural Prison: Discourse, Prisoners, and Punishment (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006). 11. Angela Y. Davis, Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005), 39. 12. Amnesty International USA, “Stonewalled: Police Abuse and Misconduct Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the U.S.” (New York: Amnesty International USA, 2005); Ryan Conrad, ed., Against Equality: Prisons Will Not Protect You (Lewiston, ME: Against Equality Press, 2012); Joey Mogul, Andrea Ritchie, and Kay Whitlock, Queer (In) Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States (Boston: Beacon Press, 2011); Spade, Normal Life; Eric A. Stanley and Nat Smith, eds., Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2011). 13. See Jaime M. Grant et al., “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey” (Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2011). 14. See Leo Chavez, The Latino Threat Narrative: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008); J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601; Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). 15. See Catherine R. Squires and Daniel C. Brouwer, “In/Discernible Bodies: The Politics of Passing in Dominant and Marginal Media,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19, no. 3 (2002): 283–310. 16. See Mogul, Ritchie, and Whitlock, Queer (In)Justice. 17. See Karma R. Chávez, “Spatializing Gender Performativity: Ecstasy and Possibilities for Livable Life in the Tragic Case of Victoria Arellano,” Women’s Studies in Communication 33, no. 1 (2010): 1–15. 18. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, “Detention of Criminal Aliens: What Has Congress Bought?” (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 2010). The ACLU reports that in 2011, DHS detained 429,000 people and had 33,400 in detention on any given day. See ACLU, “Immigration Detention,” 2012, http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/detention. 19. See Stephanie J. Silverman, “Immigration Detention in America: A History of Its Expansion and a Study of Its Significance” (Oxford: University of Oxford–COMPAS/ Department of Politics and International Relations, 2010). 20. See Mark Dow, American Gulag: Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). 21. Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform, “Alleged Deception of Congress: The Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform’s Fact-Finding Visit to the Miami District of INS in June, 1995,” http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9606/miafile4.htm. 22. See Tom Barry, “The National Imperative to Imprison Immigrants for Profit,” in Americas Program Report (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2009). 23. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99–603, United States Statutes at Large (Washingont, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986), 100:3359–445. See also Jonathan Xavier Inda, “Subject to Deportation: IRCA, ‘Criminal Aliens,’ and the Policing of Immigration,” lecture, University of Arizona, February 7, 2013. 24. Donald Kerwin and Serena Yi-Ying Lin, “Immigration Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities?” (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009), 6. This increase can be explained in part by the events of 1996, in which President Clinton signed three pieces of legislation that had detrimental impacts on migrants (among other marginalized populations) and that led to the explosion of the criminalization and detention of migrants. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Illegal

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 85

8/5/15 2:04 PM

86

|

activism and public campaigns

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act worked together to erode migrants’ rights and access to services; this functioned to criminalize and punish an array of behaviors and exacerbated the system of detention and deportation by mandating these as punishment for a host of actions, many of which are not criminal. See Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights, “Immigration Reform Update: The 1996 Immigration Laws and Their Impact on Civil Rights,” Civil Rights Monitor 11, no. 3 (2000), http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/v0111_n03/art7p1.html; Eithne Luibhéid, “Heteronormativity, Responsibility, and Neo-Liberal Governance in U.S. Immigration Control,” in Passing Lines: Sexuality and Immigration, ed. Brad Epps, Keja Valens, and Bill Johnson González (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 69–101. 25. See Zaeske, Signatures of Citizenship. See also Alisse Theodore, “‘A Right to Speak on the Subject’: The U.S. Women’s Antiremoval Petition Campaign, 1829–1831,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5, no. 4 (2002): 601–24. 26. See Kira O’Connor, “Slacktivism or This Generation’s Activism: Do Online Petitions Work?,” Article 3, September 27, 2012, http://www.article-3.com/slacktivism-or-this-generations -activism-do-online-petitions-work-99221. 27. This is not the place to elaborate on their arguments, but many feminists have critiqued the rhetoric of protection as both paternalistic and colonialist, often reducing or erasing the voices and subjectivities of those who “need” protection. 28. One could make a parallel here with the Abu Ghraib scandal. See Jasbir K. Puar, “On Torture: Abu Ghraib,” Radical History Review 93 (Fall 2005): 13–38. 29. See INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, ed., The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (Boston: South End Press, 2007). 30. Dylan Rodríguez, “The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex,” ibid., 21–40; Ruth Wilson Gilmore, “In the Shadow of the Shadow State,” ibid., 41–52. 31. See, e.g., López, “In Their Own Words”; Anna Ochoa O’Leary, “Close Encounters of the Deadly Kind: Gender, Migration, and Border (In)Security,” Migration Letters 5, no. 2 (2008): 111–21; Stop Prisoner Rape, “No Refuge Here: A First Look at Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention” (Los Angeles: Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004); Meghan Rhoad, “Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention” (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2010). 32. See Dana L. Cloud, Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: Rhetoric of Therapy (London: Sage, 1998). 33. See Yasmin Nair, “What’s Left of Queer? Immigration, Sexuality, and Affect in a Neoliberal World,” Immigrant City Chicago, http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/immigrant citychicago/essays/nair_leftofqueer.html; Spade, Normal Life. 34. Visiting the US-Mexico border, or anywhere within ninety miles of it, reveals the expansive militarization that has been building since the 1970s. Border Patrol agents carry guns designed for military issue. Military units carry out unspecified missions on the border. Drones, spotlights, telescopes, and weapons of war dominate the landscape. See Karma R. Chávez, “Border Interventions: The Need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 48–62; Timothy J. Dunn, The Militarization of the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1978–1992: Low-Intensity Conflict Doctrine Comes Home (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996); Timothy J. Dunn, “Border Militarization via Drug and Immigration Enforcement: Human Rights Implications,” Social Justice 28, no. 2 (2001): 7–30. 35. Keren Zwick, “Obama Administration Slow to Address Abuse of LGBT Immigrant Detainees,” Huffington Post, April 24, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keren-zwick/ lgbt-immigrant-detainees_b_1450156.html.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 86

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

87

36. E.g., Sarah Sutschek, “County Jail Named in Abuse Complaint,” Northwest Herald, April 15, 2011, http://www.nwherald.com/2011/04/14/county-jail-named-in-abuse-complaint/ ak1z2ks/; Cindy Carcamo, “ICE Detainees Report Abuse,” Orange County Register, April 15, 2011. Among these reports, only one person implicated in the complaints, an assistant state’s attorney in Illinois named Don Leist, suggested that there was no foundation for these complaints. 37. Department of Homeland Security, “Secretary Napolitano Announces Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities,” press release (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2012). 38. Stephen Lee Myers and Helene Cooper, “U.S. to Aid Gay Rights Abroad, Obama and Clinton Say,” New York Times, December 6, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/ united-states-to-use-aid-to-promote-gay-rights-abroad.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 39. BBC News, “Cameron Threat to Dock Some UK Aid to Anti-Gay Nations,” October 31, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15511081. On the negative consequences, see Eriasa Mukiibi Sserunjogi, “Why Germany Will Not Cut Aid over Gay Bill,” Daily Monitor, December 2, 2012, http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/ThoughtIdeas/Why-Germany-will-not-cut -aid-over-gay-Bill/-/689844/1634154/-/view/printVersion/-/a4yfv3z/-/index.html.

bibl io gr a ph y ACLU. “Immigration Detention.” 2012. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/detention. Amnesty International USA. “Stonewalled: Police Abuse and Misconduct Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People in the U.S.” New York: Amnesty International USA, 2005. Barry, Tom. “The National Imperative to Imprison Immigrants for Profit.” In Americas Program Report. Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2009. BBC News. “Cameron Threat to Dock Some UK Aid to Anti-Gay Nations.” October 31, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15511081. Carcamo, Cindy. “ICE Detainees Report Abuse.” Orange County Register, April 15, 2011. Chávez, Karma R. “Border Interventions: The Need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the USMexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 48–62. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. ———. “Spatializing Gender Performativity: Ecstasy and Possibilities for Livable Life in the Tragic Case of Victoria Arellano.” Women’s Studies in Communication 33, no. 1 (2010): 1–15. Chavez, Leo. The Latino Threat Narrative: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. Cloud, Dana L. Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: Rhetoric of Therapy. London: Sage, 1998. Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform. “Alleged Deception of Congress: The Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform’s Fact-Finding Visit to the Miami District of INS in June, 1995.” http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9606/miafi le4.htm. Conrad, Ryan, ed. Against Equality: Prisons Will Not Protect You. Lewiston, ME: Against Equality Press, 2012.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 87

8/5/15 2:04 PM

88

|

activism and public campaigns

Davis, Angela Y. Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005. Department of Homeland Security. “Secretary Napolitano Announces Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities.” Press release. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2012. Dow, Mark. American Gulag: Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Dunn, Timothy J. “Border Militarization via Drug and Immigration Enforcement: Human Rights Implications.” Social Justice 28, no. 2 (2001): 7–30. ———. The Militarization of the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1978–1992: Low-Intensity Conflict Doctrine Comes Home. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996. Ehrenreich, Ben. “Death on Terminal Island: Over Four Years, 74 People Have Died While Being Held by Immigration Officials; Victoria Arellano Was One.” Los Angeles Magazine, September 2008. http://www.lamag.com/featuredarticle.aspx?id=9366&page=1. Grant, Jaime M., Lisa A. Mottet, Justin Tanis, Jack Harrison, Jody L. Herman, and Mara Keisling. “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.” Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2011. Hartnett, Stephen John, ed. Challenging the Prison-Industrial Complex: Activism, Arts, and Educational Alternatives. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2010. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99–603. United States Statutes at Large 100:3359–445. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, ed. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. Boston: South End Press, 2007. Inda, Jonathan Xavier. “Subject to Deportation: IRCA, ‘Criminal Aliens,’ and the Policing of Immigration.” Lecture, University of Arizona, February 7, 2013. Kerwin, Donald, and Serena Yi-Ying Lin. “Immigration Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities?” Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights. “Immigration Reform Update: The 1996 Immigration Laws and Their Impact on Civil Rights.” Civil Rights Monitor 11, no. 3 (2000). http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/v0111_n03/art7p1.html. López, Victoria. “In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers.” Phoenix: ACLU of Arizona, 2011. Luibhéid, Eithne. “Heteronormativity, Responsibility, and Neo-Liberal Governance in U.S. Immigration Control.” In Passing Lines: Sexuality and Immigration, ed. Brad Epps, Keja Valens, and Bill Johnson González, 69–101. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. May, Andrew Harmon. “Eight Months in Solitary: Is a Government Turf War over Immigration Detention Putting Transgender Lives at Risk?” Advocate, May 7, 2012. http://www .advocate.com/news/news-features/2012/05/07/transgender-detainees-face-challenges -broken-immigration-system?page=0,0. Mogul, Joey, Andrea Ritchie, and Kay Whitlock. Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 2011. Myers, Stephen Lee, and Helene Cooper. “U.S. to Aid Gay Rights Abroad, Obama and Clinton Say.” New York Times, December 6, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/ united-states-to-use-aid-to-promote-gay-rights-abroad.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Nair, Yasmin. “What’s Left of Queer? Immigration, Sexuality, and Affect in a Neoliberal World.” Immigrant City Chicago. http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/immigrantcitychicago/ essays/nair_leftofqueer.html.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 88

8/5/15 2:04 PM

protecting lgbt migrants

|

89

National Immigrant Justice Center. “About NIJC.” 2011. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/ about-nijc. ———. “LGBT Immigrant Rights Initiative.” 2011. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/lgbt -immigrant-rights-initiative. ———. “Mass Civil Rights Complaint Details Systemic Abuse of Sexual Minorities in U.S. Immigration Detention.” Press release, April 13, 2011. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/ press_releases/mass-civil-rights-complaint-details-systemic-abuse-sexual-minorities -us-immigration-d. Ochoa O’Leary, Anna. “Close Encounters of the Deadly Kind: Gender, Migration, and Border (In)Security.” Migration Letters 5, no. 2 (2008): 111–21. O’Connor, Kira. “Slacktivism or This Generation’s Activism: Do Online Petitions Work?” Article 3, September 27, 2012. http://www.article-3.com/slacktivism-or-this-generations -activism-do-online-petitions-work-99221. PCARE. “Fighting the Prison-Industrial Complex: A Call to Communication and Cultural Studies Scholars to Change the World.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4, no. 4 (2007): 402–20. Puar, Jasbir K. “On Torture: Abu Ghraib.” Radical History Review 93 (Fall 2005): 13–38. Rhoad, Meghan. “Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention.” Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2010. Rodríguez, Dylan. “The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.” In The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, ed. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, 21–40. Boston: South End Press, 2007. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Silverman, Stephanie J. “Immigration Detention in America: A History of Its Expansion and a Study of Its Significance.” Oxford: University of Oxford–COMPAS/Department of Politics and International Relations, 2010. Sloop, John M. The Cultural Prison: Discourse, Prisoners, and Punishment. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006. Solomon, Alisa. “Trans/Migrant: Christina Madrazo’s All-American Story.” In Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossings, ed. Eithne Luibhéid and Lionel Cantú Jr., 3–29. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of the Law. Boston: South End Press, 2011. Squires, Catherine R., and Daniel C. Brouwer. “In/Discernible Bodies: The Politics of Passing in Dominant and Marginal Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19, no. 3 (2002): 283–310. Sserunjogi, Eriasa Mukiibi. “Why Germany Will Not Cut Aid over Gay Bill.” Daily Monitor, December 2, 2012. http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/ThoughtIdeas/Why-Germany -will-not-cut-aid-over-gay-Bill/-/689844/1634154/-/view/printVersion/-/a4yfv3z/-/index. html. Stanley, Eric A., and Nat Smith, eds. Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2011. Stop Prisoner Rape. “No Refuge Here: A First Look at Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention.” Los Angeles: Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004. Sutschek, Sarah. “County Jail Named in Abuse Complaint.” Northwest Herald, April 15, 2011. http://www.nwherald.com/2011/04/14/county-jail-named-in-abuse-complaint/ak1z2ks/. Theodore, Alisse. “‘A Right to Speak on the Subject’: The U.S. Women’s Antiremoval Petition Campaign, 1829–1831.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5, no. 4 (2002): 601–24.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 89

8/5/15 2:04 PM

90

|

activism and public campaigns

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. “Detention of Criminal Aliens: What Has Congress Bought?” Syracuse: Syracuse University, 2010. Wilson Gilmore, Ruth. “In the Shadow of the Shadow State.” In The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, ed. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, 41–52. Boston: South End Press, 2007. Zaeske, Susan. Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women’s Political Identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Zwick, Keren. “Obama Administration Slow to Address Abuse of LGBT Immigrant Detainees.” Huffington Post, April 24, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keren-zwick/lgbt -immigrant-detainees_b_1450156.html.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 90

8/5/15 2:04 PM

4

dropping the “i-word” A Critical Examination of Contemporary Immigration Labels Claudia A. Anguiano

There are a variety of terms for the estimated 11.1 million noncitizens residing in the United States, many of which are used formally to invoke a person’s legal status under federal US immigration statutes. While certain slurs like “wetback” are widely rejected, terms like “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrants”— sometimes shortened to “illegals”—predominate in the contemporary discourse about immigration. The word “illegal” indexes a complex history that characterizes how we talk and think about immigrants, making the debate over its usage much more than a call for “political correctness.” Circulated in local and national media, reflected in policy discussion, and referenced in public commentary, this polarizing label is integral to both maintaining and disrupting claims for legal rights and social inclusion. Activist segments of the undocumented community seek to influence public discourses around “illegality” and belonging because the values and variables attached to such ideas have a direct impact on the immigration debate. In September 2010, the daily news site Colorlines.com launched an online public campaign, “Drop the I-Word” (DTIW). As the DTIW campaign name implies, the core mission of this activist effort is to eradicate the word “illegal” from the public imaginary by educating the general populace about words and their consequences. Undocumented youths characterized by their political consciousness are directing their agenda toward alternative signifying labels. So-called DREAMers—named for their eligibility for the federal Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act—have been at the forefront of the relabeling efforts, advocating bipartisan legislation that would provide conditional nonimmigrant status. While the word DREAMer originated as an acronym, the reference to young immigrants now connotes a certain kind of empowerment. Organizations like DreamActivist.org—a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 93

8/5/15 2:04 PM

94

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

network of local community activists at the helm of the movement for selfdirected organizing—relied on a full spectrum of agitation strategies, ranging from public storytelling to civil disobedience. The ability of noncitizens to separate themselves from accusations of criminality requires challenging the dominant meaning of legality and illegality; the task of reimagining citizenship in the United States thus is a rhetorical as well as a political act. If citizenship is secured not only through legal statutes and public policies (both national and international) but also through discourses one uses to refer to its historically contingent meaning, then rhetorical enactments become crucial to decentering the system of signs around immigration. In this chapter, I examine pro-migrant campaigns to illustrate how activists have transformed language and the normative values attached to it in their efforts to confront anti-immigrant opposition. I begin by examining the DTIW campaign as an effective form of rhetorical activism, explicating counterdominant strategies to overturn the dehumanizing language that links migrants to “illegality.” Next, I consider the relabeling efforts of unauthorized migrant youths, or DREAMers, defying fear vis-à-vis the “undocumented and unafraid” identity created by their social and rhetorical protest. I conclude with a discussion of alternative naming.

The Rhetoric of “Illegality” in Dominant Public Discourses Advocates of stricter border enforcement, who argue for the deportation of unauthorized migrants, limit the lexical repertoire of the national immigration debates to the vocabulary of “illegality.” For them, the term—often in conjunction with the question “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”— is the preferred way to highlight the supposed lawlessness of moving through geographical borders. The terminology designates being unauthorized as criminal, thereby triggering the public’s associations of migrants with descriptors such as “‘polluting’ ‘diseased’ ‘sinning’ ‘un-American’ ‘criminal’ ‘enemy’ ‘alien’ ‘breeding’ ‘beast’ ‘piece of shit’ ‘(insert racial expletive)’ who ‘free-rides’ off the system and is ‘damaging the economy.’ ” Given that “illegal” is a preferred signifier for migrants, and acknowledging both the divisive and unifying potential of labels, it is helpful to examine the rhetorical maneuverings through which the meaning of “illegality” is secured. The signifier “illegal” and its application to people has a relatively short history in the American English language. First recorded in 1892, the term was

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 94

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

95

initially used in an 1897 New York Times article referring to Chinese nationals. Tracing the historical and social construction of “illegality” to the Immigration Act of 1924, Mae Ngai dates its cultural and legal prominence to the racially motivated quota system based on immigrant national origins. Echoing Ngai, Aviva Chomsky chronicles how undocumented status came to occupy a pernicious place in the United States, writing that only after 1965 did the term become commonplace in a wide array of professional settings. The term had a resurgence in the early twentieth century, influenced by racist sentiments directed against Jews in Europe. The descriptor emerged in Britain during the 1930s to categorize Jews escaping Nazi-occupied Germany, entering Palestine without authorization. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel captures the word in his famous 1939 novel Night. He coined the phrase “no human being is illegal” in a speech supporting a community-based organization called Central American Resource Center. As a part of a broader campaign to grant rights to refugees arriving from conflict in Central America, Wiesel observed that applying the term “illegal” as a noun effectively renders the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, illegal. The phrase, however, is now a visible protest sign of the larger resistance movement against US domestic and foreign neocolonial practices. In the communication discipline, studies have long focused on powerdefining discourses to show that naming is power. The discursive power to name someone, as Stuart Hall has noted, is in the ability of words to control how people are represented. Words signify the relationship between language and democratic processes and, more precisely, the positive or negative valence in “systems of representation.” “Illegal” and “irregular” are two major signifiers that legitimate social difference as they refer to the presence of migrant subjects as outside the law, a symbolic meaning resulting from the material privileges conferred on the status of “citizen.” It follows from this discursive approach that naming produces meanings that shape public opinion, a representational power further exacerbated by the agenda-setting capacity of mass media. Such mediated terminology conflates the understanding of noncitizen subjects, making it less likely for the public to support a path to citizenship. Scholarship that addresses the historical contexts of migration makes a clear connection between the language used to restrict legal naturalization and the material outcome of the policies themselves. Indeed, the word “illegal” not only carries symbolic signifying power but also has concrete effects on legislative practices. Ono and Sloop’s foundational study of the intersection

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 95

8/5/15 2:04 PM

96

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

between discourse and immigration explains, “[immigration] rhetoric shifts borders, changing what they mean publicly, influencing public policy, altering the ways borders affect people, and circumscribing political responses to such legislation.” Likewise, DeChaine argues, “More and more, in fact, ‘illegal’ is becoming an implicit modifier, the already-present threat that marks the alienized subject. To invoke the term ‘alien’ is now nearly all that is required. Her illegality is given. Through the alien’s consolidation as the implicit subjectsignifier of illegal immigration, alienization is enacted linguistically and performatively as a self-evident expression of the abject other.” Consequently, the rhetoric of “illegality” becomes a rationalization tool that corresponds to the harsh treatment of noncitizens, stalling reform and promoting reductionist immigration policies. Lina Newton insists in Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant that political debates about contemporary migration reform depend on descriptors that enable the introduction and enactment of controversial legal rulings. Literature about illegality makes evident that whoever possesses the ability to define the terms of citizenship possesses the means to control the debate. My analysis moves beyond the underpinnings of dominant discourses toward an examination of the counterdominant strategies available to resist the powerful effects of the discourse of illegality.

Counterdominant Rhetorical Strategies A substantive body of scholarship recognizes the reality-creating process of language; literature on constitutive rhetoric substantiates the powerful role language plays in influencing perception, thought, and action. Relabeling is a corrective strategy designed to build a positive rather than a negative symbolic reality for the immigration debate. Two strategies in particular have been used: identification and disidentification. Following this understanding, I argue that linguistic conventions (as rhetorical acts) emerge from struggles of power. Thus strategies of identification and disidentification constitute important verbal activism that decenters the meaning of certain words, or aligns it with other discourses typically understood to be separate from the phrase. The process of adopting alternative discourses is not merely an exercise in neologism, as Hauser and McClellan argue. While they note that linguistic modes of resistance are most simply understood as modes of expression employed to dissent and agitate for change, and entail “new appropriations of existing words,” I suggest that language is a useful device for those struggling

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 96

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

97

to shape migration reform; subversion of official discourses has the ability to rupture those discourses. The political approach adopted by pro-and antiimmigrant activists hinges on language’s capacity to influence the American public’s understandings of who individuals settling in the United States are. Thus, to understand advocacy against deprecatory terms, I analyze counterdiscourse at the intersection of varying pro-migrant mobilization campaigns. Drop the I-Word Eradication Strategies Since 2010, the news site Colorlines.com, aligned with the Applied Research Center, has sustained the online campaign “Drop the I-Word.” This website addresses the moral responsibility of the press to avoid oppressive labels assigned to unauthorized individuals. DTIW relies on a two-pronged advocacy strategy to meet the goals stated on their web page, and to redefine what it means to be undocumented. On a broad level, the campaign promotes individual responsibility for dropping the “I-word”; the website allows to visitors fill out a pledge against the moniker. On a more specific level, the campaign targets media outlets and journalists, encouraging them to eliminate the word “illegal” from media coverage. The site has a number of pragmatic elements. The DTIW toolkit, for example, makes available various resources that show ways of engaging in advanced participation: sample letters to the editors of news organizations demanding that they stop using the I-word, and an action guide to mobilize readers to ask journalists and others to use terms that more accurately describe a person’s legal situation (e.g., undocumented immigrant, unauthorized person, and migrants without papers). It also provides a clearly articulated rationale for eradicating the I-word. The toolkit material rejects attempts to settle on a new term, arguing, “A single phrase will not be adequate to describe the status of all people caught up in the broken immigration system.” My examination of the DTIW website suggests the use of the following counterargument strategies: (a) “illegal” as inaccurate, (b) “illegal” as dehumanizing, and (c) “illegal” as racist. “Illegal” as Inaccurate A central strategy of the DTIW campaign is to call attention to the inaccuracy of the word by arguing that the informal label “illegal” is not legally sound. For example, the sample letter suggests, “Even my computer doesn’t

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 97

8/5/15 2:04 PM

98

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

recognize ‘illegals’ as a noun. So how do you justify using the word in the article?” Noting that the term derives from US immigration laws, advocates clarify that it is neither used nor defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, or by those with “legitimate” power in the legal sphere. The sample letter references the incoherent use of the term from the standpoint of immigration law, affirming that “immigration judges and ICE attorneys don’t use the terms because they are meaningless in the context of immigration proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, does not use the terms either.” This argument of inaccuracy draws on the presumption of legal innocence and the right to due process guaranteed under the US Constitution. Moreover, DTIW’s deconstruction of the law marks illegality as a rhetorical act of contradiction, noting how the United States depends on migration while simultaneously waging a war against it. In this strategy, DTIW explains that there are few, if any, available avenues for legalization. They critique the myth that US immigration law is fair and equal, persuasively asking readers to consider the specific historical conditions that make admission to the United States a tenuous, rather than fi xed, process. Examples from the website show how the pathway to citizenship is often impeded by harsh and outdated immigration laws, demand attention to the discriminatory practices and injustices of US immigration law, and shift the discourse by presenting people who lack official legal standing owing to a variety of systemic circumstances (e.g., forced migration as result of economic factors and harmful policies like NAFTA). The claim that migration discourses obscure the roles that various US agents and institutions have played in encouraging and/or facilitating unauthorized immigration is not conjecture; it is supported by data. “Illegal” as Dehumanizing The second approach of the DTIW campaign is to hold writers and bloggers to the ethical standards of their profession. Vehement objections are raised against journalists for using the guise of objectivity when reporting about people as “illegal” subjects. As long as the “accepted practice [is] to use the words ‘accused,’ ‘purported,’ or ‘alleged’ before a case is resolved legally,” the I-word’s association with illegality denies the presumption of innocence. This rationale for using the term “illegal alien,” Kevin Johnson argues, characterizes a factually flawed approach. The phrase modifies the person. DTIW

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 98

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

99

calls for awareness of the consequences of labeling people as a noun, rather than their behavior as a verb. DTIW demands respect for migrants as human beings by making visible the forms of oppression contained in the word “illegal.” The potency of language for creating “the other,” as Román and Bracy argue, is crucial to the process of fostering hatred. Their sharp historical reference compares the constructive power of negative associations to the ghastly laws and policies enacted by the Third Reich, which stigmatized the Jewish community. Román and Bracy point to the social effect of inaccurately attributed words as part of a rationalization process for debasing noncitizens, “who under our criminal and immigration laws have committed typically nothing more than a misdemeanor, as a group of hardened criminals that we should fear and exclude.” That nexus between hateful speech and outcome, as scholars embracing a constitutive understanding of rhetorical practice have demonstrated, carries the ability to organize moral value systems and consequently influence policy decisions and immigration law. “Illegal” as Racist A third way in which DTIW advocates for the adoption of more accountable language practices is evident in the strategy of linking racism to the rhetoric of illegality. Centralizing race in the debate, DTIW notes that “the discriminatory message is not explicit, but hidden, or racially coded,” and asks participants to eliminate “illegal” from public discourse because this racial slur creates negative attitudes toward immigrants and people of color, regardless of migratory status. The coordinator of the DTIW campaign, Mónica Novoa, positions the descriptor in fundamental opposition to racial justice. Rather than appropriate the word “illegal,” the campaign challenges it as unacceptably racist; it argues that the word, disguised in the cloak of neutrality, is residual of the US history of race-based anti-immigrant sentiment. Again, this argument raises awareness of what law and humanities scholars who theorize about migration have concluded: that racism in citizenship laws dates back to the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that discriminatory tendencies remain in contemporary citizenship regulations. DTIW’s argument draws attention to other racially loaded words that signify dominant racial discourses. Colorlines’ publisher, Rinku Sen, has rejected the logic that DTIW is about parsing nouns and adjectives, observing, “all this indicates a great faith in the average American’s knowledge of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 99

8/5/15 2:04 PM

100

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

grammar, a faith that hasn’t been borne out by a reality in which everyday people, pundits and politicians regularly refer to immigrants as ‘illegals.’ ” Instead, the campaign notes, “You wouldn’t call someone a w*tback, or the n-word. Saying ‘illegals’ is just as bad.” The link to the “n-word” epithet is an important counterclaim to the common assumption behind “illegal,” highlighting the racialized elements of the migration debate. By explicitly referencing the changing categories of terms used by previous generations to describe African Americans, the campaign locates the word “illegal” in an antiquated racial politics. The title of the campaign, aligning the abbreviation of “illegal” with the abbreviation of Negro, or “nigger,” rhetorically links the derogatory nature of “illegal” as a slur to discourses typically understood as separate from the phrase. The DTIW campaign focuses on the consequences of using the word “illegal” for promoting racial and ethnic hatred, for adding to the “culture of intolerance and violence” via bigotry cloaked in semantics. Citing and posting news articles and research studies that evince the troubling trend of increased hate crimes and the racial profiling of immigrants of color, the campaign identifies the term “illegal” as having consequences beyond shaming the undocumented immigrants under current scrutiny. As scholars like Jonathan Rosa have argued, the word registers beyond someone’s migration status: it is mapped onto one’s entire person. In this way, DTIW addresses the materiality of racism experienced by immigrants, bringing a critical race approach to structural racial bias in the United States against migrants of color. A critical race lens situates migration within legacies rooted in white supremacy that enable the language of racist nativism. Pérez Huber and colleagues, who interrogate the dominant racialized perceptions of immigrants of color as nonnative to the United States, note how the law positions noncitizens within a complex tension, as both empowered to challenge oppressive policies and constrained by nativist racism. A critical race framework maintains the power of language to name, institute, and enforce dominant white ideologies but cautions against assuming that all the power subsists in the communicative impact of racist discourses. Specifically, Audrey Olmsted warns against putting too much faith in language (narrative, speeches, words), noting that “merely saying something (naming) does not make it so (institute it), nor does naming make its practice legal (enforce it) unless the namer has power.” In the rhetorical paradigm of naming, the emphasis should lie not in reshaping the word “illegal” as a racial epithet, or rallying against its use, but in the power to change a public culture

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 100

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

101

of intolerance and racial subjugation affecting undocumented migrants and people of color.

Undocumented Youths’ Self-Identification Strategies If DTIW illustrates the power of rhetoric to reshape discourse about immigration at the level of mass media and public policy, then DREAMers show commitment to regaining control of undocumented youths’ self-representation and identity. In what follows, I present DREAMers’ strategies of petitioning for citizenship. These illustrate important attempts to both reshape messages about immigration and dismantle the pejorative term “illegal,” while creating alternative self-definitional labels, including (a) student-focused terms, (b) DREAMer, and (c) alternative cultural understandings of the word “undocumented.” The Evolution of DREAMers Since 2010, national organizations like DreamActivist.org and United We Dream have put the undocumented experience at the forefront of the immigration debate. As I have argued elsewhere, naming strategies forged and used by DREAM-eligible youth, claiming an empowered DREAMer label, originated with heightened consciousness around the “undocumented” identity. Prior to DTIW’s launch, DreamActivist.org, a prominent undocumented youth action and resource network site, served as the national website for the movement, featuring a wide spectrum of activism. An example of their efforts occurred in December 2009, when the thenactive DreamActivist.org admonished USA Today for reporting a story with a headline that called undocumented students in the United States “illegal students.” Prerna Lal spearheaded the initiative to challenge mainstream media to reevaluate their policies, asking, “What is ‘illegal’ exactly about being a student in this case? Is a drunk 19 year old college student an ‘illegal student’ as well? Is it supposed to describe anyone who has ever done something illegal and also gone to school?” This campaign accomplished a successful petition drive through Change.org to reevaluate the words used to describe unauthorized students; the drive resulted in USA Today’s retraction of the word “illegal.” Scholars have recognized that despite lacking visa status, some undocumented youths experience certain privileges not afforded to other segments of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 101

8/5/15 2:04 PM

102

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

the undocumented population. Their enrollment in higher education has led to terms that define undocumented youths principally as students. In academic literature, the use of “1.5 generation” to refer to immigrant children highlights their bicultural mannerisms, interests, and aspirations, while simultaneously connoting a liminal status between the first and second generation. Leisy Abrego reminds us that neutral labeling strategies protect the identities of marginalized groups trying to claim rights and forge alternative identities beyond the stigmatized labels assigned by anti-immigrant factions. She characterizes the term “AB540 students,” derived from California Assembly Bill 540, which granted undocumented youths an exemption from out-of-state tuition, as a socially acceptable label for undocumented migrant students. “DREAMers” stands as a positive name that enables undocumented youths to initiate a debate on a positive note. An undocumented community organizer notes that the strategy hinges on a need to call “ourselves a better name, to counteract how anti-immigrant discourse starts the debate with the use of illegal alien.” This is crucial in social movements, as James Jasper notes, since self-naming is an important tool by which the dominant logic may be shifted; the construction of political realities by protestors shows that “naming of one’s own group or movement is an important part of creating an identity in whose name the movement justifies its own action.” Rather than conjure up ideas of being foreign or newly arrived immigrants, the term refuses the inferiority scripts offered by the dominant culture, focusing on the requirements stipulated by the DREAM Act: age, education, and length of time in the United States. Whether someone is self-identified or labeled as a DREAMer, the term itself resonates with a subcategory of immigrants who embody the characteristics of exceptional, high-achieving, assimilated individuals. Not all DREAMers see themselves in these terms, but undocumented youths are targets of both liberal and conservative critics. A range of critiques have argued that migrant youths are responsible for compromising comprehensive migration reform by advocating DREAM Act legislation as a stand-alone bill. Undocumented and Unafraid An important self-identification strategy, the undocumented label is used by DREAMers to demand recognition on the grounds on which recognition was denied. While the word DREAMer obscures status, the term “undocumented,” which turns attention to the lack of documentation, highlights the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 102

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

103

paperwork necessary to convert the official status of migrants. In the battle over migration terminology, the word “undocumented” has been used with increasing frequency, along with “unauthorized,” as a less hostile alternative to “illegal.” Coupling “unafraid” with the word “undocumented” generates a motto that signals an attitude in unauthorized youth activism: fearlessness. The self-naming used in the “undocumented and unafraid” relabeling strategy creates a distinctive and shared identity as a basis on which to petition for status. Fear surrounding the disclosure of undocumented status presents a dilemma well known among immigrants. While undocumented youths are affected by discriminatory legislative policies, they are also unable to express their discontent through legitimate channels without risking deportation. By demanding that undocumented youths be seen and recognized, DREAMers foreground their rhetorical strategy on the basis of vocality and visibility as they petition for full rights. For example, in “Coming Out: A How To Guide,” the result of collaborative efforts among activist youths from various political networks, DREAMers advocate the disclosure of one’s undocumented status as a way to resist stigma and fear. The guide describes how undocumented youths willingly stepped into the public and social media spotlight, noting that these youths would not let themselves “be intimidated, scared, or ashamed.” For this reason, the guide notes, they hosted the National Coming Out of the Shadows Week of March 15–21, 2010. Their effort to take “the fight from the so-called shadows and into the streets” was literal. As youths began declaring their status at rallies in metropolitan spaces from New York to California, they boldly disclosed their status by wearing “Undocumented and Unafraid” T-shirts and displaying the slogan on protest signs. Sharing their stories publicly with the goal of gaining support for the DREAM Act, they personalized the plight of undocumented youth. Illustrating the important coupling between rhetorical protest interventions and concrete political tactics, undocumented youths openly defied fear and criminalization, progressively escalating their strategies to include a variety of civil disobedience efforts. Such an approach uses both rhetorical and cultural strategies to diminish the stigma surrounding undocumented people. In actuality, DREAMers’ advocacy goes beyond the narrowly tailored bill that would regularize DREAMers’ legal status; it counters the forces that would expel out-of-status individuals from the United States. In effect, new labels add to the vocabulary, representing the protest rhetoric of undocumented youths who make claims for belonging irrespective of official status.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 103

8/5/15 2:04 PM

104

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

These strategies go beyond the instrumental act of advocating for legislation, becoming constitutive acts that give their movement legitimacy, effectively maintaining and defending advantageous (i.e., positive) self-conceptions. The evolution of a youth movement claiming “undocumented and unafraid” as a rhetorical strategy makes this a more complex naming process of redefining or disrupting normalized discursive practices.

Political Correctness or Political Change? I have argued that public identification efforts, such as the “Drop the I-Word” campaign and DreamActivist.org, can be understood as rhetorical maneuvers that reframe contemporary debates over citizenship status. Resistance against discriminatory words, such as “illegal immigrant” and “illegals,” demonstrates the rhetorical significance of disparaging words, their institutional embeddedness, and their potentially redemptive power to influence civil discourse. The results of such advocacy, however, have varied. In April 2013, three years after the launch of DTIW, mainstream media organizations like the New York Times remained opposed to changes in their editorial norms, while the Associated Press announced that it would no longer sanction the term “illegal immigrant.” The AP standards editor, withholding due credit from thousands of activists, attributed the AP’s change in journalistic practices to cultural changes in the English language that “reflect the evolution of society.” The political force of rhetorical choices encourages scholars to consider how shifting demographics prompt a rethinking of the meaning and value of citizenship in the United States. Transformations of the populace will have to be understood as fundamentally rhetorical, since citizenship is intimately bound to the language that individuals use to make sense of their cultural identity. At the core of these efforts are attempts for immigrants to represent and describe themselves as subjects in the margins of power. Activist groups who reclaim marginalizing labels by making them visible to the public when the term “illegal alien” is used, do so as a claim to inclusion and belonging. By offering different rhetorical frameworks to understand the meaning of “undocumented people” in the United States, these efforts help lay the foundation for a more politically and economically just society. Significantly, the resolution of the “immigration issue” is not purely a matter of prohibiting disparaging language. Bonilla-Silva and Embrick warn of new rhetorical practices that serve a twenty-first-century colorblind ideology

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 104

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

105

by maintaining a racial hierarchy. Choosing one word as better than another does not mean that labels will not change, rendering the words we advocate now eventually useless. Despite dedicated support and preference for the term “undocumented,” that word may in time be attacked, modified, or abandoned for taking on the pejorative air that “illegal” has now. According to the Associated Press, “undocumented” is still imprecise, as migrants may have all sorts of documents, like a driver’s license from their home country. Oppression of immigrants, especially immigrants of color, will not disappear with the abolition of the term “illegal,” a derogatory part of our vernacular. As Bonilla-Silva and Embrick caution, “Whites need not call minorities n*ggers, spics, or chinks to keep them in their new, but still subordinated, place.” Proponents of immigration reform must be attuned to the challenges of creating oppositional discourses of race; this attunement ought to focus particularly on how “acceptable” language choices deceive society into a false sense of equality. The campaign for new naming practices is a double-edged sword. Rhetorical options available to immigrants, while constrained by oppressive material conditions, can be influential in affecting material activism and conditions. That is, the term “illegal” must be not only deconstructed discursively but also supplanted by new institutional forms that create a space of linguistic intelligibility for those who cannot speak within a given context of power. Rhetorical constructions of unauthorized migrants have been developed and sustained through systemic processes, and thus can only be undone by changing social structures. The campaign calls for support from rhetorical scholars, whose work around language as constitutive of social phenomena can fundamentally contribute to the discussion. Certainly, there are critical rhetoric scholars who already recognize the important avenue of communication and education in enacting change. This unique role of theorizing the relationship and consequences of migration terminology presents the opportunity to move beyond raising awareness, and to consider possibilities for actively intervening in this important social justice issue.

note s The author would like to thank Johanna Hartelius, Karen Foss, Lourdes Gutierrez, and Josh Hanan for their comments on drafts of this chapter. 1. Jeff rey S. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,” Pew Hispanic Center, March 7, 2006, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf/. 2. It is important for my purposes to distinguish between “migrant” and “immigrant.” As Mae Ngai has observed, not all migrants are immigrants. In US law, “immigrant” refers to an

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 105

8/5/15 2:04 PM

106

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

alien (the original word for a person who is not a citizen) who comes for permanent settlement, and may be naturalized as a citizen. The legal term for sanctioned short-term settlement is “nonimmigrant”; this refers to temporary workers, visitors, and foreign students. Scholarly use of the terms “migration” and “migrants” signals that the process of resettlement is not necessarily limited to a permanent one-way process; rather, movement can be circular. Here, I refer to “immigrants” and “immigration” as a way of signaling common usage, and in doing so I ground my analysis in public discourses. The tenuous processes for legalization (whether because of unauthorized border crossing, visa violation, policy redefinition, or exclusionary laws) dictate who is barred from citizenship and who is entitled by law to remain (whether as refugees, legal workers, or legal guests of some type). These processes increasingly make it important to specify how someone entered the country and from where. See Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 3. See Lina Newton, Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform (New York: New York University Press, 2008). 4. See the Colorlines “Drop the I-Word” homepage, http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/. 5. Although I capitalize “DREAMers,” the word is inconsistently used in lower- and uppercase variations by participants and in literature. 6. See Claudia A. Anguiano, “Undocumented, Unapologetic, and Unafraid: Discursive Strategies of the Immigrant Youth DREAM Social Movement” (PhD diss., University of New Mexico, 2011). 7. See Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 189–211. 8. See Melissa Browning, “Reexamining Our Words, Reimagining Our Policies: Undocumented Migration, Families, and the Moral Imagination,” Journal of Poverty 13 (2009): 234–53. 9. Kevin Johnson, “The Unconscious as a Rhetorical Factor: Toward a BurkeLacanian Theory and Method” (PhD diss., University of Texas, 2007), 218. See also Nicholas De Genova, “The Queer Politics of Migration: Reflections on ‘Illegality’ and Incorrigibility,” Studies in Social Justice 4, no. 2 (2010): 101–26. 10. On rhetorical maneuvers generally defined as a pattern of performance attached to a given subject position, see Kendall R. Phillips, “Political Maneuvering: Subjectivity, Power, and Resistance,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 39 (2006): 310–32. 11. See http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E04E6DB123CE433A2575 7C1A9669D94669ED7CF/. 12. Ngai also discusses the use of eugenics to justify the biological superiority of white people of European descent and the deportation of foreign-born persons as essential to preserving American racial character. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 23–24. 13. Aviva Chomsky, Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014), 49. 14. In response to this rise in the visibility of immigrant protests, see Katarzyna Marciniak’s critical examination of the No Human Being Is Illegal art exhibition, which shows how the phrase itself functions as an imaginative refusal of citizenship grounded in the distinction between legal and illegal. See Marciniak, “Legal/Illegal: Protesting Citizenship in Fortress America,” Citizenship Studies 17 (2013): 260–77. 15. See John C. Condon, Semantics and Communication (New York: Macmillan, 1985), 69–85. 16. See Stuart Hall, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007). 17. Leo R. Chavez, “The Condition of Illegality,” International Migration 45 (2007): 193. 18. See Hugh Mehan, “The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation,” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70; Michael B. Salwen and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 106

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

107

Frances R. Matera, “Setting the News Agenda with an Ethnic-Relevant Topic: Public Salience of Illegal Immigration,” Howard Journal of Communications 8 (1997): 329–41. 19. On the rhetorical metaphors used to describe immigrants, see Leo R. Chavez, Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of a Nation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11 (2008): 569–601; Karma R. Chávez, “Embodied Translation: Dominant Discourse and Communication with Migrant Bodies-as-Text,” Howard Journal of Communications 20 (2009): 18–36; Lisa A. Flores, “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87; Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002); Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, Vivian Louie, and Roberto Suro, eds.,Writing Immigration: Scholars and Journalists in Dialogue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). 20. See Peter Spickard, Almost All Aliens: Immigration, Race, and Colonialism in American History and Identity (New York: Routledge, 2007). 21. For a review, see Anne Demo, “Policy and Media in Immigration Studies,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7 (2004): 215–57; and Fernando Delgado, “Immigration Rhetoric,” Review of Communication 3 (2003): 188–91. 22. Ono and Sloop, Shifting Borders, 5. 23. D. Robert DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95 (2009): 51. Also see D. Robert DeChaine, ed., Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012). 24. Joseph Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary (New York: Routledge, 2002), 96. Th is includes legislation like Proposition 187 that identifies, prosecutes, and deports unauthorized persons, relying on the racist nativist logics of the term. See Marouf Hasian Jr. and Fernando Delgado, “The Trials and Tribulations of Racialized Critical Rhetorical Theory: Understanding the Rhetorical Ambiguities of Proposition 187,” Communication Theory 8 (1998): 245–70. 25. Newton, Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant, 163. 26. See Ediberto Román, Those Damned Immigrants: America’s Hysteria over Undocumented Immigration (New York: New York University Press, 2013). 27. See Charles E. Morris III and Stephen Howard Browne, eds., Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest (State College, PA: Strata, 2006); Charles J. Stewart, Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton Jr., Persuasion and Social Movements, 5th ed. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 2006). 28. Gerard A. Hauser and Erin Daina McClellan, “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements: Performances of Resistance in the Rhetoric of the Everyday,” in Active Voices: Composing a Rhetoric for Social Movements, ed. Sharon McKenzie Stevens and Patricia M. Malesh (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 43. 29. Colorlines, “Drop the I-Word Campaign,” “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://color lines.com/droptheiword/resources/en/toolkit.html/. 30. Ibid., “Sample Letters to the Editors.” 31. See Tanya Golash-Boza, “The Immigration Industrial Complex: Why We Enforce Immigration Policies Destined to Fail,” Sociology Compass 3 (2009): 295–309. 32. Spickard, Almost All Aliens, 6. 33. Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper, 81. 34. Colorlines, “Drop the I-Word Campaign,” “Sample Letters to the Editors.” 35. See Kevin R. Johnson, The “Huddled Masses” Myth: Immigration and Civil Rights (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 107

8/5/15 2:04 PM

108

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

36. Ediberto Román and Bobby Joe Bracy, “Words Do Matter in the Immigration Debate,” From the Square, April 23, 2013, http://www.fromthesquare.org/?p=4794. 37. Colorlines, “Drop the I-Word Campaign,” “FAQ.” 38. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 81. 39. Rinku Sen, “Immigrants Are Losing the Policy Fight, but That’s Beside the Point,” Colorlines, September 17, 2012, http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/09/. 40. Lawrence Downes, “The ‘Illegal’ Trap,” New York Times, September 28, 2012, http:// takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/the-illegal-trap. 41. Jonathan D. Rosa, “The ‘Drop the I-Word’ Campaign from the Perspective of Linguistic Anthropology,” Anthropology News, October 10, 2012, http://www.anthropologynews .org/index.php/2012/10/09/. 42. A short video on the site discourages public discourse by showing an animated “hate machine,” feeding on the word’s exploitation of racial fears and economic anxiety. 43. See Lindsey Pérez Huber et al., “Getting Beyond the Symptom, Acknowledging the Disease: Theorizing Racist Nativism,” Contemporary Justice Review 11 (2008): 39–51. 44. Audrey P. Olmsted, “Words Are Acts: Critical Race Theory as a Rhetorical Construct,” Howard Journal of Communications 9 (1998): 329. 45. See Anguiano, “Undocumented, Unapologetic, and Unafraid.” 46. Previously, the DreamActivist homepage was at http://www.dreamactivist.org/; see http://dreamactivist.tumblr.com/ and DreamActivist (@DreamAct) on Twitter for their active sites. 47. MAGraduate, “Calling USA Today: What the Heck Is an ‘Illegal Student’?” Daily Kos, December 17, 2009, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/17/815636/-Calling-USA-Today -What-the-Heck-is-an-Illegal-Student/. 48. See Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbaut, eds., Immigrant America: A Portrait, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). 49. See Leisy Abrego, “Legitimacy, Social Identity, and the Mobilization of Law: The Effects of Assembly Bill 540 on Undocumented Students in California,” Law and Social Inquiry 33 (2008): 709–34. 50. Interview with undocumented youth activist by author, July 20, 2010. 51. James Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 103. 52. See Claudia A. Anguiano and Karma R. Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream,” in Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz?, ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011), 81–99. 53. Anguiano, “Undocumented, Unapologetic, and Unafraid,” 171. 54. DreamActivist, New York State Youth Leadership Council, and United We Dream Network, “Coming Out: A How To Guide,” http://www.nysylc.org/2010/03/coming-out-of -the-shadows-week-how-to-guide/. 55. Kemi Bello, “Coming Out Undocumented: An Evolution,” Change.org, March 10, 2010, http://immigration.change.org/blog/. 56. Hinda Seif, “Unapologetic and Unafraid: Immigrant Youth Come Out from the Shadows,” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 134 (2011): 73. 57. Anguiano, “Undocumented, Unapologetic, and Unafraid,” 141. 58. Anguiano and Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse,” 89. 59. Katy Steinmetz, “AP Bans ‘Illegal Immigrant’: The Tricky Language of Immigration Reform,” Time magazine, April 3, 2013, http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/03/ap-bans-illegal -immigrant/. 60. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and David G. Embrick, “Racism Without Racists: ‘Killing Me Softly’ with Color Blindness,” in Reinventing Critical Pedagogy, ed. César Augusto Rossatto, Ricky Lee Allen, and Marc Pruyn (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006), 30. 61. Ibid.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 108

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

109

62. See Joshua Gunn and John Louis Lucaites, “The Contest of Faculties: On Discerning the Politics of Social Engagement in the Academy,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 96, no. 4 (2010): 404–12.

bibl io gr a ph y Abrego, Leisy. “Legitimacy, Social Identity, and the Mobilization of Law: The Effects of Assembly Bill 540 on Undocumented Students in California.” Law and Social Inquiry 33 (2008): 709–34. Amaya, Hector. “Performing Acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o Immigrant Self.” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 194–212. Anguiano, Claudia A. “Undocumented, Unapologetic, and Unafraid: Discursive Strategies of the Immigrant Youth DREAM Social Movement.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico, 2011. Anguiano, Claudia A., and Karma R. Chávez. “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream.” In Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz? ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell, 81–99. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. Asen, Robert. “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 189–211. Bello, Kemi. “Coming Out Undocumented: An Evolution.” Change.org, March 10, 2010. http:// immigration.change.org/blog/. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, and David G. Embrick. “Racism Without Racists: ‘Killing Me Softly’ with Color Blindness.” In Reinventing Critical Pedagogy, ed. César Augusto Rossatto, Ricky Lee Allen, and Marc Pruyn, 21–34. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006. Browning, Melissa. “Reexamining Our Words, Reimagining Our Policies: Undocumented Migration, Families, and the Moral Imagination.” Journal of Poverty 13 (2009): 234–53. Charland, Maurice. “Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Quebecois.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 133–50. Chávez, Karma R. “Embodied Translation: Dominant Discourse and Communication with Migrant Bodies-as-Text.” Howard Journal of Communications 20 (2009): 18–36. Chavez, Leo R. “The Condition of Illegality.” International Migration 45 (2007): 192–96. ———. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of a Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Chomsky, Aviva. Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. Boston: Beacon Press, 2014. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11 (2008): 569–601. Colorlines. “Drop the I-Word Campaign.” http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/resources/en/ toolkit.html/. Condon, John C. Semantics and Communication. New York: Macmillan, 1985. Crenshaw, Carrie. “Colorblind Rhetoric.” Southern Communication Journal 63 (1998): 244–56. DeChaine, D. Robert. “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95 (2009): 43–65. ———, ed. Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. De Genova, Nicholas. “The Queer Politics of Migration: Reflections on ‘Illegality’ and Incorrigibility.” Studies in Social Justice 4 (2010): 101–26. Delgado, Fernando. “Immigration Rhetoric.” Review of Communication 3 (2003): 188–91. Demo, Anne. “Policy and Media in Immigration Studies.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7 (2004): 215–57.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 109

8/5/15 2:04 PM

110

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Downes, Lawrence. “The ‘Illegal’ Trap.” New York Times, September 28, 2012. http://takingnote .blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/the-illegal-trap. DreamActivist, New York State Youth Leadership Council, and United We Dream Network. “Coming Out: A How To Guide.” http://www.nysylc.org/2010/03/coming-out-of-the -shadows-week-how-to-guide/. Flores, Lisa A. “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87. Golash-Boza, Tanya. “The Immigration Industrial Complex: Why We Enforce Immigration Policies Destined to Fail.” Sociology Compass 3 (2009): 295–309. Gunn, Joshua, and John Louis Lucaites. “The Contest of Faculties: On Discerning the Politics of Social Engagement in the Academy.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 96, no. 4 (2010): 404–12. Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007. Hasian, Marouf, Jr., and Fernando Delgado. “The Trials and Tribulations of Racialized Critical Rhetorical Theory: Understanding the Rhetorical Ambiguities of Proposition 187.” Communication Theory 8 (1998): 245–70. Hauser, Gerard A., and Erin Daina McClellan. “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements.” In Active Voices: Composing a Rhetoric for Social Movements, ed. Sharon McKenzie Stevens and Patricia Malesh, 23–47. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009. Jasper, James. The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Johnson, Kevin. “The Unconscious as a Rhetorical Factor: Toward a BurkeLacanian Theory and Method.” PhD diss., University of Texas, 2007. Johnson, Kevin R. The “Huddled Masses” Myth: Immigration and Civil Rights. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. Lowe, Lisa. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 1996. Marciniak, Katarzyna. “Legal/Illegal: Protesting Citizenship in Fortress America.” Citizenship Studies 17 (2013): 260–77. Mehan, Hugh. “The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation.” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70. Morris, Charles E., III, and Stephen Howard Browne, eds. Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. State College, PA: Strata, 2006. Nevins, Joseph. Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.Mexico Boundary. New York: Routledge, 2002. Newton, Lina. Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Olmsted, Audrey P. “Words Are Acts: Critical Race Theory as a Rhetorical Construct.” Howard Journal of Communications 9 (1998): 323–31. Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Passel, Jeff rey S. “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.” Pew Hispanic Center, March 7, 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf/. Pérez Huber, Lindsey, Corina Benavides Lopez, Maria C. Malagon, Veronica Velez, and Daniel G. Solorzano. “Getting Beyond the Symptom, Acknowledging the Disease: Theorizing Racist Nativism.” Contemporary Justice Review 11 (2008): 39–51. Phillips, Kendall R. “Political Maneuvering: Subjectivity, Power, and Resistance.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 39 (2006): 310–32.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 110

8/5/15 2:04 PM

dropping the “i-word”

|

111

Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut, eds. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Rosa, Jonathan D. “The ‘Drop the I-Word’ Campaign from the Perspective of Linguistic Anthropology.” Anthropology News, October 10, 2012. http://www.anthropologynews .org/index.php/2012/10/09/. Salwen, Michael B., and Frances R. Matera. “Setting the News Agenda with an Ethnic-Relevant Topic: Public Salience of Illegal Immigration.” Howard Journal of Communications 8 (1997): 329–41. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Seif, Hinda. “Unapologetic and Unafraid: Immigrant Youth Come Out from the Shadows.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 134 (2011): 59–75. Sen, Rinku. “Immigrants Are Losing the Policy Fight, but That’s Beside the Point.” Colorlines, September 17, 2012. http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/09/. Spickard, Peter. Almost All Aliens: Immigration, Race, and Colonialism in American History and Identity. New York: Routledge, 2007. Steinmetz, Katy. “AP Bans ‘Illegal Immigrant’: The Tricky Language of Immigration Reform.” Time magazine, April 3, 2013. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/03/ap-bans-illegal -immigrant/. Stewart, Charles J., Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton Jr. Persuasion and Social Movements. 5th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 2006. Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M., Vivian Louie, and Roberto Suro, eds. Writing Immigration: Scholars and Journalists in Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Román, Ediberto. Those Damned Immigrants: America’s Hysteria over Undocumented Immigration. New York: New York University Press, 2013. Román, Ediberto, and Bobby Joe Bracy. “Words Do Matter in the Immigration Debate.” From the Square, April 23, 2013. http://www.fromthesquare.org/?p=4794. Wiesel, Elie. Night. New York: Bantam Books, 1960.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 111

8/5/15 2:04 PM

5

“american” children’s success and global competitiveness The Racial Paradox of Bilingualism as Cultural Capital Dina Gavrilos

For a predominantly monolingual English-speaking society, the tremendous growth of foreign-language-immersion programs in US public schools during the past forty years is notable. Designed to teach native English-speaking students proficiency in another language through immersion—the speaking and teaching of academic subjects in that language—these programs have grown exponentially since first introduced in 1971, most recently nearly doubling, from 263 in 2006 to 463 in 2011. The majority of these foreign-languageimmersion programs are offered in elementary schools. The top three languages taught in immersion schools are Spanish (45 percent), French (22 percent), and Mandarin (13 percent). Mainstream news sources have reported this trend with enthusiasm. A feature story in the Wall Street Journal in 2004 titled “Achtung Baby: New Approach to Languages” highlighted the desire of “U.S.-born parents” for bilingual education: “U.S.-born parents, determined that their children have every advantage, have started enrolling their children in these schools and created more so their kids will be bilingual.” In general, the news discourse around the growth of immersion programs represents bilingualism as an asset in a multicultural and globally competitive world. That is, unless the student is bilingual and brown. Paradoxically, a redoubling of efforts to maintain the dominance of English has also characterized public discourse about language in the past three decades. An “English Only” movement was born in the 1980s to reinforce the dominant role of English in American culture. These efforts have been part of the broad-ranging conservative backlash that emerged in the 1980s in response to minority rights gains of the 1960s and 1970s. Specifically, contemporary anti-immigrant sentiments have targeted the growing number of immigrants

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 112

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

113

of color, predominantly Latino immigrants. Conservative activists and policymakers have characterized growing diversity as a threat to the linguistic and cultural integrity of the nation, even though 80 percent of the US population speaks only English in the home, and the majority of the 20 percent who speak a language other than English in the home also speak English “very well.” Thus paradoxical cultural discourses about language practices coexist: native English-speaking children (typically represented as middle- and upperclass and white, as this study later shows) are culturally celebrated for pursuing bilingualism and its purported academic, cultural, social, and economic advantages; at the same time, immigrant children are encouraged to adopt English as their primary language as quickly as possible. It appears that being white and bilingual is socially desirable; being brown and bilingual is not. Certainly, racism and class inequalities underlie this differential and paradoxical assessment of the virtues of bilingualism. Disturbingly, however, this racist paradox escapes public acknowledgment and scrutiny. How and why does mainstream discourse about the value of bilingualism diverge so distinctively along race and class lines without public acknowledgment, even though, once noted, it seems like a rather glaring contrast? How and why does mainstream news discourse escape critique when constituting bilingualism as an asset for predominantly white, relatively affluent children within a national cultural context that simultaneously circumscribes bilingualism in immigrant children as a social problem? To explicate this paradox, it is necessary to understand how racism is communicated in its subtlest forms. For the purpose of analyzing precisely such subtle and paradoxical racialized discourses, an overarching critical perspective—critical rhetorics of race—was put forth by scholars Michael G. Lacy and Kent A. Ono. A critical-rhetoricsof-race perspective points to the complex contemporary mediated representations of race that are often “ambivalent, contradictory, and paradoxical.” This perspective exposes “overt and inferential forms of racism, while highlighting and interpreting complex relationships and intersections, that, at first glance, might not appear to be about race and racism.” Employing this rhetorical perspective and drawing upon theoretical ideas about identity and class from cultural studies (Stuart Hall), black feminist thought (bell hooks), and sociology (Pierre Bourdieu), I interpreted newspaper and news magazine coverage of this growing trend of foreign-languageimmersion programs, coverage that proliferated alongside the growth of these programs and became especially visible after 2008. The remainder of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 113

8/5/15 2:04 PM

114

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

this introduction summarizes my arguments and conceptual contributions to a critical rhetorics of race perspective, which arose from this case study, before proceeding to the detailed study itself. In the news discourse about foreign-language-immersion education, the rhetorical figure of the quintessential “American” child emerged (typically characterized as a native English speaker, white, and middle-/upper-class). This figure was positioned as easily acquiring and benefiting from the advantages of bilingualism, which included (a) enhanced intellectual/cognitive skills; (b) the ability to thrive in a multicultural global economy; and (c) being seen as “cool” by being portrayed as “different” and culturally enriched in contrast to most “ordinary” monolingual Americans. However, it is precisely because this rhetorical figure is constituted as American through native English monolingualism and its unquestionable, and thereby privileged, symbolic identification with the status of Americanness and whiteness that the white child functions as a symbol of individual and national prosperity, instantiating economic opportunities in a multicultural and globalized world. In this discourse, acquiring a foreign language can be seen as an example of bell hooks’s notion of “eating the Other,” a co-opting of the Other’s difference that produces cultural cachet or cultural capital for the white, native, English-only-speaking American child. Historically, by contrast, speaking non-English languages is discursively constructed as a threat or problem, specifically for the lower-class bilingual immigrant subject, because of its racialized association with “foreignness” or ethnic Otherness. Thus I contend that cultural capital (in this case, the value of bilingualism or multilingualism) was discursively and differentially produced through the rhetorical figures and actual bodies of racialized subjects—as an advantage for white children, a disadvantage for the Other. This approach extends Bourdieu’s theoretical concept of cultural capital, showing how cultural capital is reproduced not only through class structures, as Bourdieu delineates, but also through discourses inextricably linking class and race, producing what can be considered racialized cultural capital. In accounting for how such separate and distinctive discourses about the value of bilingualism are permitted to circulate in mainstream culture and produce oppositional values of what is essentially the same cultural trait (bilingualism) with little acknowledgment, I turn to the work of Stuart Hall. Hall argues that the news media represent the universalized white middleclass perspective; he demonstrates how this perspective touts the values of pluralism and cultural diversity while reflecting an unspoken and predomi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 114

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

115

nantly white racial perspective. This is apparent in how news discourse represents the trend of foreign-language-immersion schooling. On its surface, journalistic coverage of immersion programs seems innocuous and ostensibly about an educational opportunity that could lead to “American” children’s future success. The implicit construction of whiteness produces a universal, normal, everyday Americanness through seemingly noncontroversial news about trends and lifestyles. The promise of success, discursively yet subtly embodied by the white “American” child’s becoming bilingual, is not represented as an overtly racialized phenomenon. By contrast, coverage about educating immigrant children employs a controversial framework, invoking what are often represented as insurmountable racial, linguistic, and educational “problems,” a representation that demonstrably centers race/ethnicity as the issue. The explicitly racialized construction of the Other produces a controversial figure through ongoing narratives of social crises—the Other is rarely the key figure in stories about mainstream noncontroversial trends. I argue that this implicit ideology of whiteness functions as an invisible demarcation around this news discourse, separating it from similar yet overtly racialized and class-contingent discourse, such as that about language education for nonnative English-speaking children. Indeed, this foreign-language-immersion education trend is ultimately unintelligible as a noteworthy trend without its production of the quintessential “American” child success story, a racialized white subject who embodies the successful commodification of cultural “difference.” In other words, the value of bilingualism is a noteworthy trend precisely because of the white subjectivity that embodies it. Cultural capital is gained by the dominant class and race through the commodification of the Other’s language, which is often positioned as a symbolic racial burden in the Other. Seeing how news about a subject, in this case bilingual education, can be represented through two seemingly separate discourses based primarily on the implicit whiteness and explicit Otherness at their center, I introduce the term disjunctive discourses as a heuristic conceptual tool for identifying similar cultural phenomena. Evident when examining the wider discursive field, disjunctive discourses can be identified when looking for how a topic is treated differentially along race and class lines, but in ways that are implicit and go unnoticed because they are often found in different mediated spheres of public interest (e.g., the features section versus the hard news section). Such seemingly separate discourses about a similar topic (e.g., bilingual education) belie an invisibly demarcated and unspoken racial and class logic about the topic, masking the latent

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 115

8/5/15 2:04 PM

116

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

and mutually constitutive race- and class-based interests that underpin that topic. This essay delineates these theoretical and interpretive insights by exploring the historical context of US racial politics pertaining to language dominance, and engaging in a close ideological reading of contemporary news coverage about language education, demonstrating how particular racialized and classcontingent subject positions and material outcomes in the form of racialized cultural capital are produced through discourse.

The Racial Politics of Language and National Identity Rhetorical scholars have theorized the powerful communicative silence of whiteness, a rhetorical construction that reinforces and maintains white racial dominance. Studies point to the function of whiteness as silent “strategic rhetoric,” constituting an invisible, universal, and normative racial position in everyday practices. This scholarship helps explain the unspoken, taken-forgranted symbolic link between English and national identity that enacts hierarchical ethnic and racial divisions. English functions so powerfully as a culturally unifying symbol of national identity in mainstream national culture that its white, Anglo-specific roots seem invisible. Indeed, a discursive strategy for maintaining the dominance of whiteness is “confus[ing] whiteness with nationality . . . [in which] the vision of whiteness is bounded by national borders.” What we think of as the typical English-speaking American is a hegemonic representation of a figure who seems devoid of ethnic-specific and racial connotations but who simultaneously and invisibly communicates whiteness. The seemingly natural, deep-rooted link between Americanness and English masks the multiethnic and multilingual heritage of the nation, reinforcing the centrality of Anglo heritage and dominance in the nation’s history. Therein lies the silent yet strategic rhetorical role of whiteness in power relations. The challenge for rhetorical critics today in the context of a prevailing ideology that condemns explicit and obvious racist talk is to point out the ways in which whiteness gets constituted without acknowledgment. Rhetorical studies of whiteness make explicit “the problem of how whiteness refuses to name itself, how it always likes to remain ‘hidden,’ and how it deters from acknowledging the larger issue of how the everyday organization of social and cultural relations functions to confer benefits and systemic advantages to whites.” Thus “rhetoricians must do the critical ideological work necessary to

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 116

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

117

make whiteness visible and overturn its silences for the purpose of resisting racism.” When analyzing universalized, normative identities, it is important to interrogate how, as cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall theorizes, identities “are constructed through, not outside difference.  .  . . every identity naming as its necessary, even if silenced and unspoken other, that which it ‘lacks.’” The conceptual tool of disjunctive discourses introduced here can helpfully lead to identifying the subtle Other/whiteness social dynamic, even when this dynamic is found in seemingly unrelated discourses. Consequently, it is important to show how national identities are rhetorically constituted to seem racially unified, and how unifying traditions like English as the dominant national language are made to seem racially stable, even as these traditions belie the histories of the unspoken Other. Although English has long been the dominant language in the United States, “the myth of English monolingualism is another story entirely.” The United States has always been multilingual, and the intrinsic association of English with Americanness was and remains an ideological linkage. English dominance arose out of a process of ideological differentiation in relation to other languages. The ideology of English dominance was tied to ethnic and racial superiority justifying imperial conquest and cultural coercion. Anglo rule in the early days of nation building resulted in the near eradication of indigenous peoples’ languages, the linguistic genocide of African slave languages, and the coerced obsolescence of immigrant groups’ languages through the ideological demands of assimilation. Language suppression has often served as a tool of elite oppression. Brute force is of course not the only way that language dominance is established. US political and cultural approaches to linguistic pluralism have been contradictory, ranging from linguistic annihilation to tolerance of linguistic pluralism. There is in fact a long tradition of bilingualism among minoritylanguage speakers in the United States. Predominantly, however, the ideology of English monolingualism prevails, with “an expectation for assimilation or shift into the English language, as well as the expectation of loss of mother tongues.” The most prevalent justification for English monolingualism has been the belief that “immigrant language minorities represent a divisive force for maintaining national unity.” At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, anti-immigrant attitudes turned into what became known as “100 percent Americanism,” a coercive xenophobia targeting the mainly European immigrants who arrived during the highest levels of immigration seen in the United

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 117

8/5/15 2:04 PM

118

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

States, coinciding with the social upheavals of urbanization, industrialization, and World War I. This “nativism” required complete assimilation to dominant American traditions, including the English language, while eliminating any traces of the old country. By the 1920s, “most states had English-only laws for public school instruction,” ending what had been relatively laissez-faire attitudes toward language programs. This fear-based immigrant discourse was extended to Mexicans and Mexican immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s, which helped justify deportation and repatriation policies. Anti-immigrant xenophobia emerged again in the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, coinciding again with high levels of immigration. The resurgent contemporary nativism, targeting Latinos, who make up the largest number of immigrants, now employs terms like “illegals” and “aliens,” criminalizing and dehumanizing immigrants as an invading force and social problem. Contemporary anti-immigrant discourse also includes racist dimensions either implicitly or explicitly—phrases like “the browning of America” illustrate such references—as more than “90 percent of immigrants to the United States at the end of the twentieth century were from non-European countries.” Significantly, this period of high immigration also coincided with the civil rights movement and its push for cultural, legal, and political rights for minorities. The linguistic needs of immigrant children with limited English skills became a concern in the late 1960s. Indeed, the prejudiced English-only schooling policies, sometimes enforced with corporal punishment targeting Spanishspeaking students, moved Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas to introduce the Bilingual Education Act of 1967, providing federal aid for bilingual education for limited-English-speaking students. With the 1980s conservative backlash, however, language conflicts reemerged, evident through the English Only movement and bilingual education debates, symbolic of racist sentiments and social tensions related to demographic and cultural changes. Support for bilingual education eroded amid controversies as Englishimmersion models were favored in the 1990s and 2000s. By then, bilingual education was so unpopular politically that the Bush administration renamed the Office of Bilingual Education to emphasize English-language acquisition. It became the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. In this context, well-intentioned debates over how best to address the educational needs of this population often reduce the issue to “language barriers” or other symbols of ethnic difference. Controversy surrounding bilingual education

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 118

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

119

thus overwhelmingly represents immigrant children, Latino/a ones in particular, as the nation’s social problem.

The Production of Racialized Cultural Capital Through the Other Constructing American identity is not only about whiteness asserting dominance through overt demonization of the immigrant Other. This is particularly significant as the election of the first black president seemingly has rendered racism a culturally debatable anachronistic nonissue. In this era, mainstream American culture emphasizes ethnic and racial diversity as valuable and desirable. Thus whiteness and American identity are constructed through the cultural production of desire for the Other, for “difference.” What explains public discourse that concurrently presents nativist resentment and cultural difference as “cool”? bell hooks’s notion of “eating the Other” explains how the cultural desire for, and ultimately commodification of, ethnic and racial difference is endemic in problematic race relations produced through “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” hooks describes how the commodification of Otherness is enacted within mainstream popular culture: “Within current debates about race and difference, mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgment and enjoyment of racial difference. The commodification of Otherness has been so successful because it is offered as a new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling. Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture.” In this description, whiteness is silently embedded in the idea of commodification of the Other. As the silent yet ever-present universal norm, whiteness connotes a culturally generic mainstream sameness that can seem mundane and boring. hooks explains that “difference can seduce precisely because the mainstream imposition of sameness is a provocation that terrorizes.” Thus commodification of the Other can signify “cool, hip, and transgressive.” The commodification of the Other’s difference is highly problematic, as “the commodification of difference promotes paradigms of consumption wherein whatever difference the Other inhabits is eradicated, via exchange, by a consumer cannibalism that not only displaces the Other but denies the significance of that Other’s history through a process of decontextualization.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 119

8/5/15 2:04 PM

120

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

In this case, the language of the Other is positioned as a commodity when it is consumed in a way that culturally and socially disconnects it from its native speakers, its history, and its cultural community, and ignores its position within power relations. To explore the implications of commodification for this case, I turn to Bourdieu’s work on cultural capital, arguing that the commodification of racial difference transforms cultural capital into racialized cultural capital. Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital proposes that the reproduction of social class occurs not only through economic capital but also through the transmission of cultural knowledge in the form of literacy, languages, and other cultural practices, which function as a form of capital. Bourdieu highlights how elite classes have the means to invest their children early on with influential cultural capital. This same cultural capital is then transmitted as valued knowledge through educational institutions. Bourdieu notes how this class-defined reproduction of cultural capital is masked when adopted as the seemingly universal standard of education. This provides children of elite classes with inherent advantages and a head start in schools, in contrast to children from lower classes who are disadvantaged, beginning their education with a cultural knowledge deficit. Employing critical race theory, educational scholar Tara Yosso critiques Bourdieu’s work for failing to account for the racial dominance of whiteness as the basis for norms of cultural knowledge. Yosso dismisses the pejorative deficit model of cultural capital in which marginalized communities are positioned as disadvantaged. Instead, she identifies particular forms of cultural capital transmitted within communities of color that are unrecognized strengths, including linguistic capital like bilingualism. I, too, critique Bourdieu’s failure to account for the racialized nature of cultural capital; yet I take my critique in the direction of communication. By combining hooks’s notion of eating the Other with the idea of cultural capital, I demonstrate how public discourse positions bilingualism as an educational strength (or cultural capital) for white, native, English-only speakers, while at the same time pushing a linguistic “deficit” discourse onto immigrant bilingual children. I argue that the commodification of the Other in a capitalist society produces not just a general universal form of cultural capital that some may or may not have access to, but an inherently racialized cultural capital. The case of bilingualism as cultural capital in the United States is noteworthy because affluent monolingual English-speaking families cannot transmit bilingualism within the family. This presents an interesting case for furthering

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 120

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

121

our understanding of the production of cultural capital. Cultural capital is produced not only through class privilege but in combination with racial privilege as well. In the case of the commodification of the Other’s language, class privilege allows a child to pursue bilingualism through educational opportunities. However, the linguistic cultural capital of bilingualism is only bestowed on the white child because of the child’s dominant racial status. This is ironic insofar as the lower-class family of the immigrant child might more readily transmit a foreign language, but its racialized and class status prevents this language from being perceived as cultural capital. Significantly, then, what counts as cultural capital is not an attribute constituted outside racialized bodies, but rather an attribute constituted through racialized bodies and the significations and practices of race and class.

The Production of Racialized Cultural Capital Through News Discourse Mainstream journalism remains an important chronicler of local and national trends. Because of the decentralization of the US school system, news about school trends or policy changes is often reported first and primarily in local newspapers. In addition, national newspapers (the New York Times or Wall Street Journal) and news magazines (Time and Newsweek) are rich sources of information about education trends. With that in mind, I searched for local and national newspaper and magazine articles about foreign-languageimmersion education from 2000 to 2012. Approximately eighty-nine articles mention early education foreign-language-immersion programs. The majority of these articles were concentrated in the years 2008 and 2009 and later. The concentration of coverage in those years is not surprising, as this coverage coincides with the time period in which foreign-language-immersion offerings were doubling, as noted earlier. The majority of these articles were relatively short local newspaper accounts of the introduction of, demand for, or success of a foreign-language-immersion program in a local school district. National newspapers and magazine articles explored the trend of language-immersion education in more depth. Taken together, these news articles produced a discourse about the growing trend of foreign-language-immersion programs. This discourse was interpreted through a form of ideological criticism, identifying underlying assumptions about race and class in cultural discourses. The passages selected in the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 121

8/5/15 2:04 PM

122

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

analysis that follows exemplify the prevailing discursive themes. The analysis traces the race- and class-based ideological assumptions underlying how bilingualism, pursued through foreign-language-immersion schools, was invested with racialized descriptors, including cognitive advantages, global economic competitive advantages, and the cultural cachet of linguistic difference.

The Intellectual Advantages of Bilingualism for the “American” Child Recent scientific studies showing the cognitive advantages of early bilingualism was one justification for families’ reported desire for early foreign-language education. Both Newsweek and the New York Times touted these advantages in articles headlined “Why It’s Smart to Be Bilingual” and “Why Bilinguals Are Smarter,” respectively. The news articles summarized recent studies showing how bilingualism can enhance intellectual faculties. The maximizing of cognitive and academic advantages was presented as a reason why affluent native English-speaking families pursued early foreign-language-immersion education, as noted in another article in the New York Times: In affluent suburban areas from New York to San Diego, children are studying second and even third languages at ages when they are still learning English.  .  . . In the past five years, foreign-language studies for the under-5 set have become as common as art and music lessons, as the more laissez-faire parenting of earlier generations is replaced by packed schedules of daily activities. . . . Many parents who are aware of the importance of early language training but cannot teach their own children have sought out established enrichment programs like the Manhattan-based Language Workshop for Children, which has 800 students under 5. The emphasis on the ease with which native English-speaking children acquire foreign languages implicitly reinforces race- and class-based assumptions about who has inherently high intellectual potential and academic capability. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Jeff Zucker’s son Maxwell attends kindergarten in French, while his toddler’s preschool is in Chinese. Linda Choppin’s first-grade daughter Michaela gets her schooling in German every other week. None of these children has native-speaking parents in these languages. But, like a growing number of kids across the country, they are undergoing in-depth courses of study in a foreign language, often as early as kindergarten.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 122

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

123

In many cases, these pint-sized polyglots learn to read and write in their second language before they learn in English.” The academic precociousness of native English-speaking children quickly learning new languages is lauded time and again. Furthermore, the incontrovertible effectiveness of foreignlanguage education, a relatively new and nonmainstream form of education, was reported at length: “In immersion schools, students are taught some or all of their curriculum—math, history, even art class, if there is one—in the foreign language. The idea is that the sink-or-swim methodology leads to greater proficiency. ‘Immersion education is by far the best type of program in the U.S. for the children to learn a foreign language,’ says Nancy Rhodes, director of foreign-language education at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C.” The certainty of positive educational outcomes from foreign-languageimmersion programs was striking in contrast to the decades-long debates, featuring inconclusive research, about effective approaches to educating immigrant children, who are often described as academically struggling and obstructed from success by language barriers. The following summarizes the seemingly intractable problem of educating immigrant children: “Despite decades of attention and debate on the issue, ‘not much has happened,’ says Kenji Hakuta, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Education in Palo Alto, Calif. ‘The problems of English-language learners persist whether it’s English-only or bilingual education.’ ” By contrast, the discourse about immersion schooling, a newer form of education for native English speakers, did not question whether native English-speaking students would fall behind in English literacy or have less than adequate abilities in both languages, points made about immersion programs targeting immigrant children. Ultimately, the reported intellectual advantages of bilingualism are rhetorically conferred on children positioned as unquestionably “American” by virtue of being monolingual, native English speakers with no trace of Otherness—an implicit figure of whiteness. This rhetorical figure came alive in Newsweek’s story about eight-year-old Happy Rogers. A poised and precocious blonde, Hilton Augusta Parker Rogers, nicknamed Happy, would be at home in the schoolyard of any affluent American suburb or big-city private school. But here, at the elite, bilingual Nanyang Primary School in Singapore, Happy is the minority, her Dakota Fanning hair shimmering in a sea of darker heads. This is what her parents have traveled halfway around the world for. While her American peers are

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 123

8/5/15 2:04 PM

124

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

feasting on the idiocies fed to them by junk TV and summer movies, Happy is navigating her friendships and doing her homework entirely in Mandarin. Fluency in Chinese, she says—in English—through mouthfuls of spaghetti Bolognese at a Singapore restaurant, “is going to make me better and smarter.”

The Benefits of Raising Bilingual “American” Children for a Global Economy In addition to the intellectual advantages, bilingualism or multilingualism reportedly ensured better economic competitiveness in an era of globalization for both individuals and the nation. Representing language as a marketable skill reduces language to its economic use value, in contrast to understanding language as a symbol of culture and heritage associated with the maintenance of ethnic communities. The New York Times noted a shift in the popular discourse about the value of bilingualism from the culturally to the economically advantageous: “Unlike earlier times, when immigrants taught their sons and daughters their native language out of necessity or tradition, many of the families today have no personal connection to the language the children are learning. Instead, they say, they want to prepare children for a global future and give them a competitive advantage for jobs as adults.” White privilege is manifested in this discourse through the depiction of economic empowerment and social agency; US-born parents advocate for certain forms of schooling in the name of attaining cultural and economic advantages. The tremendous social agency of affluent US parents is apparent in stories about foreign relocations, extreme measures taken for the purpose of providing children with a global competitive edge. Acquiring Mandarin is positioned as especially economically advantageous because of China’s emergence as an economic super power. In addition to ensuring global competitiveness for the nation and the individual, another utility of foreign-language proficiency was US national security. Post-9/11, journalists reported concern about the lack of knowledge of “critical” security languages due to a lack of multilingualism among Americans. Thus foreign-language fluency was also framed in nationalistic terms. The solution to maintaining national superiority amid global competition and security threats was to be found in these soon-to-be-bilingual American chil-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 124

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

125

dren. Newsweek wrote, “It has become a convention of public discourse to regard rapid globalization—of economies and business; of politics and conflict; of fashion, technology, and music—as the great future threat to American prosperity. The burden of meeting that challenge rests explicitly on our kids. If they don’t learn—now—to achieve a comfort level with foreign people, foreign languages, and foreign lands, this argument goes, America’s competitive position in the world will continue to erode, and their future livelihood and that of subsequent generations will be in jeopardy.” The news about America’s future prosperity implicitly conflates whiteness and nationality in the rhetorical figure of the American child, whose future and the nation’s depend on his/her acquisition of foreign-language skills. By contrast, the largest number of foreign-language speakers in the United States since the turn of the twentieth century, who could theoretically serve as the nation’s foreign-language “assets”—sticking to this problematic labeling of people as assets—and ensure the nation’s economic competitiveness, are positioned as an internal threat to the nation.

The Commodification of the Other: Linguistic Spice for American Monolingualism The rhetorical figure of the American child was endowed with the tangible intellectual and economic advantages of foreign languages. Another rationale for the growing popularity of foreign-language-immersion education among affluent native English-speaking families constructed within this discourse was the desire to consume “ethnic” difference and become like the foreignspeaking Other. Native English-speaking families are positioned as desiring bilingualism for its hint of nonmainstream difference. It has a “cool” value amid the predominantly monolingual culture that native English speakers represent. This is the idea of desiring difference to escape mainstream generic sameness, according to hooks. In this multicultural era, mainstream monolingualism signifies nondescript, bland homogeneity. This is clear in a statement from parents sending their English-speaking daughter to a Chinese-immersion school. Time magazine wrote that the parents “wanted their daughter Audrey to progress beyond their own ‘lovely but Wonder-bread’ upbringing. ‘Why would you not give your child an opportunity like this?’ asks Paul [the father]. ‘It’s another arrow in the quiver for her that most people will never have.’ ”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 125

8/5/15 2:04 PM

126

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

This representation depicts the hope that the commodification of Otherness through acquisition of linguistic difference can add “spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture.” The desire for foreign languages also represents the desire to speak and become, as much as possible, like the Other. It is not enough to mechanically learn the foreign language. Rather, the acquisition of foreign languages is constructed as especially desirable when achieving nativelike pronunciation so as to become possibly mistaken for the Other. An example of this desire to become like the Other is evident in Newsweek’s description of an American child living abroad to learn Chinese: “Baby Bee is equally at home on visits to the U.S. and in Singapore, where her father rides her to school each day on his personal pedicab. There she sings the Singapore national anthem and pledges the Singapore flag. ‘She’s no different from the Chinese kids,’ says her teacher, Fu Su Qin. ‘And her Chinese is just as good.’ ” The idea that the American child can be just like the Other, and seen as more valued as a result, reflects what hooks describes as the contemporary desire “not to make the Other over in one’s image but to become the Other.” In addition to the cultural cachet of bilingualism, the acquisition of foreign languages is positioned as a “transgressive” act that goes against the mainstream homogeneity of English monolingualism. Families seeking foreign-language-immersion education were depicted as “risk-takers” in a dominant culture characterized by monolingual dominance: “It’s a radical idea in the United States—where few adults are bilingual and foreign language instruction often starts in high school. . . . The children that are in Spanish immersion, their families are risk-takers,” said principal Brad Mengwasser. While the prevailing discourse validated the dominant culture’s commodification of the Other through foreign-language acquisition, this embrace of trendy immersion education also produced an opening for talking about families’ desire to resurrect ethnic heritages. Those who gave up their bilingual heritage for English monolingualism growing up, or never learned their heritage language at all, are represented as desiring to roll back the dominance of English monolingualism for the sake of saving their “ethnic” heritage. The Economist described the students in a two-way bilingual class as “offspring of upper-middle-class Hispanics who worry that their children will grow up knowing no Spanish.” Chinese American families’ similar desires were also noted.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 126

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

127

Conclusion Speaking Spanish and learning English does not elicit the same level of public approbation as speaking English and learning Spanish. Juxtaposing discourses about language education for different racialized subjects, we can see exactly opposite assumptions. The opposite of intellectual advantage—academic struggles due to language barriers—is represented through debates about language education for immigrant children. Too, job opportunities are depicted as a challenge for the immigrant child, unless she/he can quickly shed the foreign language and its accent and display acceptable English skills. The cultural capital of linguistic difference is not attributed to the immigrant child, because he/she does not signify “Americanness.” The native English speaker’s pursuit of foreign languages, however, leaves intact the symbolic value of whiteness as the racial center of national identity. The discourse about the typical mainstream American child pursuing the latest advantageous educational trend does not on its own raise major racial red flags. A seemingly straightforward discourse about an educational trend— apparently so uncontroversial that it does not need to be framed through the typical pro-and-con framework of the news media—powerfully masks the rhetorical power of whiteness and its race- and class-based assumptions about education. By contrast, in the discursive field of racial and ethnic crises, the immigrant child is rhetorically constituted as an educational problem for the nation. These disjunctive discourses function powerfully because they work silently, separately, and distinctively to communicate oppositional meanings along the lines of class, race, and nation. They mask the contradictory, paradoxical, and unjust race and class relations that disjunctive discourses reproduce within mainstream culture. These discourses about language education allow for the production of unspoken, racially differentiated, institutionalized educational practices, as well as for the production of racialized cultural capital, all of which lead to differential material outcomes. This case is an example of how scholars engaged in critical rhetorics of race can productively search for discursive sites that reproduce racial hierarchies beyond those that explicitly center on controversial policies. Productive inquiry can be found in illuminating the production of whiteness and Otherness in disjunctive discourses that communicate paradoxes of race and class in matterof-fact chronicling of “American” trends or other mundane stories. This era of celebratory multiculturalism alongside regressive neoliberal politics of race and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 127

8/5/15 2:04 PM

128

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

class provides a rich political and cultural context for identifying disjunctive discourses that are not overtly racist and classist, or even explicitly about race, class, and nation at all, but that are, nonetheless, constitutive of race and class hierarchies. Through this work, the critic can play a role in countering the effectiveness of disjunctive discourses by making racialized social power visible through juxtaposition. Juxtaposition can serve as a counterhegemonic rhetorical tool in reconnecting disjunctive discourses that implicitly produce the power relationship of whiteness/Otherness. By juxtaposing such discourses, critics counter the cultural contradictions, hypocrisies, and paradoxes that perpetuate race- and class-based hierarchies.

note s 1. “Foreign-language-immersion programs” is the label used in education and policy circles (although when referring to a specific school, the language of instruction is used, e.g., the Spanish-language-immersion school). According to the nonprofit Center for Applied Linguistics, the leading organization for research on language learning and teaching, foreign-languageimmersion programs are typically implemented following one of two educational models: total immersion (in which all subjects are taught only in the target language, with English instruction introduced gradually in upper elementary grades), and partial immersion (in which half of the instruction is provided in the target language in varying ways). 2. Center for Applied Linguistics, “Directory of Foreign Language Immersion Programs in U.S. Schools,” 2011, http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/. These programs are tracked by the Center for Applied Linguistics. The center uses the word “programs” because a small percentage of schools offer multiple language-immersion programs. Often, though, the phrases “immersion programs” and “immersion schools” are used interchangeably, as is the case in this chapter. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, its directory of foreign-languageimmersion programs is exhaustive in identifying all known language-immersion programs in public schools in the United States (some private schools are also included, but those schools are not accounted for exhaustively). 3. Foreign-language-immersion programs were initially introduced, and remain most pervasive, in elementary schools, because early intensive language learning assumes higher levels of language mastery in the long run. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, school districts face challenges in perpetuating advanced foreign-language-immersion programs at the middle and high school levels. 4. Center for Applied Linguistics, “Percentage of Immersion Programs by Language of Instruction, 2011,” http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/. 5. Anne Marie Chaker, “Achtung Baby: New Approach to Languages; College-Style Immersion Method Starts to Hit Grade Schools; English as a Second Language,” Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2004. 6. Hyon B. Shin and Robert A. Kominski, Language Use in the United States: 2007, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-12 (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, April 2010), 1. 7. Ibid., 3. 8. See Michael G. Lacy and Kent A. Ono, “Introduction,” in Critical Rhetorics of Race, ed. Michael G. Lacy and Kent A. Ono (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 1–17. 9. Ibid., 1.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 128

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

129

10. Ibid., 3. 11. In bringing to the fore the rhetorical figure of the “American” child, embodying whiteness and affluence in this discourse, I do not claim that middle- and upper-class white children make up the majority of children enrolled in foreign-language-immersion schools. In fact, the racial and socioeconomic breakdown of students enrolled in foreign-language-immersion schools designed for native English speakers was not reported, and I was unable to track down these numbers in the secondary literature. From the perspective of rhetorical scholarship, I am less concerned with the factual breakdown of racial/ethnic identity found in these immersion schools than with how and why the figure of the affluent white child embodies the worth of bilingualism in this news discourse. Similarly, the focus of this critique is not the lived desires of white native English-speaking families to raise bilingual children. Rather, I am concerned about the racial discrepancy in how bilingualism is culturally valued. Ideally, high levels of literacy in one or more languages alongside a critical education regarding race and class differences would be welcome all around. 12. See bell hooks, Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992). 13. Stuart Hall, “Racist Ideologies and the Media,” in Media Studies: A Reader, ed. Paul Marris and Sue Thornham (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 271–82. 14. See Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek, “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 291–309; Raka Shome, “Outing Whiteness,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17 (2000): 365–70. 15. Nakayama and Krizek, “Whiteness”; Shome, “Outing Whiteness.” 16. Nakayama and Krizek, “Whiteness,” 300. 17. Shome, “Outing Whiteness,” 367. 18. Carrie Crenshaw, “Resisting Whiteness’ Rhetorical Silence,” Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 254. 19. Stuart Hall, “Who Needs Identity?,” in Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (London: Sage, 1996), 4–5. 20. Stephen May, Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and the Politics of Language (London: Pearson Education, 2001), 208. 21. The 1790 census breakdown showed a mix of English origin, African origin, and Scottish, Scottish Irish, or Irish origin populations, as well as Native Americans who were not counted, according to Thomas Ricento, “The Discursive Construction of Americanism,” Discourse and Society 14 (2003): 613. 22. See Harold E. Schiff man, Linguistic Culture and Language Policy (London: Routledge, 1996); Ronald Schmidt Sr., Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000). 23. See Heinze Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1998). 24. Terence G. Wiley, “Immigrant Language Minorities in the United States,” in Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversity and Change, ed. M. Hellinger and A. Pauwels (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007), 53. 25. Ibid., 54. 26. John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of Nativism, 1860–1925 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955). 27. Ibid., 198. 28. Kenneth Jost, “Bilingual Education vs. English Immersion,” CQ Researcher 19 (December 11, 2009): 1040. 29. Lisa A. Flores, “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87. 30. Leo R. Chavez, Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Hugh Mehan, “The Discourse of the Illegal

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 129

8/5/15 2:04 PM

130

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation,” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70; Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002); Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). 31. See Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising. 32. Carol L. Schmid, The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 6. 33. Jost, “Bilingual Education vs. English Immersion,” 1040. 34. See Schmid, Politics of Language; Schmidt, Language Policy and Identity Politics. 35. hooks, Black Looks, 22. 36. Ibid., 21. 37. Ibid., 22–23. 38. Ibid., 39. 39. Ibid., 31. 40. Pierre Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. John G. Richardson (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241–58. 41. Tara J. Yosso, “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth,” Race, Ethnicity, and Education 8 (2005): 69–91. 42. Casey Schwartz, “Why It’s Smart to Be Bilingual,” Newsweek, August 15, 2011; Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, “Why Bilinguals Are Smarter,” New York Times, March 18, 2012. 43. Winnie Hu, “Parents Take Language Class into Their Own Hands,” New York Times, September 30, 2006. 44. Chaker, “Achtung Baby.” 45. Ibid. 46. Jost, “Bilingual Education vs. English Immersion,” 1033. 47. Lisa Miller, “How to Raise a Global Kid,” Newsweek, July 25, 2011. 48. Hu, “Parents Take Language Class.” 49. Sarah Tilton and Joanne Lee-Young, “To Improve Kids’ Chinese, Parents Head to Asia,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2012; Miller, “How to Raise a Global Kid.” 50. Miller, “How to Raise a Global Kid.” 51. hooks, Black Looks, 22–23. 52. Harriet Barovick, “Postcard: Minneapolis,” Time magazine, November 23, 2009. 53. hooks, Black Looks, 21. 54. Miller, “How to Raise a Global Kid.” 55. hooks, Black Looks, 25. 56. Ibid., 39. 57. There are of course segments of the dominant race and class who do not value the multicultural era’s emphasis on diversity and instead align themselves with the rhetoric of nonEnglish languages as threats to the cultural traditions of the nation. 58. Quoted in Katherine L. Unmuth, “Immersion Program Gives Early Start en Espanol: H-E-B District Challenges English-Speaking Students to Learn in Spanish,” Dallas Morning News, February 9, 2008. 59. “The English Patients: California Schools,” Economist, June 7, 2008.

bibl io gr a ph y Barovick, Harriet. “Postcard: Minneapolis.” Time magazine, November 23, 2009, 8. Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “Why Bilinguals Are Smarter.” New York Times, March 18, 2012.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 130

8/5/15 2:04 PM

“american” children’s success

|

131

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. John G. Richardson, 241–58. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986. Center for Applied Linguistics. “Directory of Foreign Language Immersion Programs in U.S. Schools.” 2011. http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/. ———. “Percentage of Immersion Programs by Language of Instruction, 2011.” http://webapp .cal.org/Immersion/. Chaker, Anne Marie. “Achtung Baby: New Approach to Languages; College-Style Immersion Method Starts to Hit Grade Schools; English as a Second Language.” Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2004. Chavez, Leo R. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Crenshaw, Carrie. “Resisting Whiteness’ Rhetorical Silence.” Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 253–78. Economist. “The English Patients; California Schools.” June 7, 2008, 44. Flores, Lisa A. “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 362–87. Hall, Stuart. “Racist Ideologies and the Media.” In Media Studies: A Reader, ed. Paul Marris and Sue Thornham, 271–82. New York: New York University Press, 2000. ———. “Who Needs Identity?” In Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 1–16. London: Sage, 1996. Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955. hooks, bell. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992. Hu, Winnie. “Parents Take Language Class into Their Own Hands.” New York Times, September 30, 2006. Jost, Kenneth. “Bilingual Education vs. English Immersion.” CQ Researcher 19 (December 11, 2009): 1029–52. Kloss, Heinze. The American Bilingual Tradition. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1998. Lacy, Michael G., and Kent A. Ono. “Introduction.” In Critical Rhetorics of Race, ed. Michael G. Lacy and Kent A. Ono, 1–17. New York: New York University Press, 2011. May, Stephen. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and the Politics of Language. London: Pearson Education, 2001. Mehan, Hugh. “The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation.” Discourse and Society 8 (1997): 249–70. Miller, Lisa. “How to Raise a Global Kid.” Newsweek, July 25, 2011, 48. Nakayama, Thomas K., and Robert L. Krizek. “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 291–309. Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Ricento, Thomas. “The Discursive Construction of Americanism.” Discourse and Society 14 (2003): 611–37. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Schiff man, Harold E. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge, 1996. Schmid, Carol L. The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schmidt, Ronald, Sr. Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. Schwartz, Casey. “Why It’s Smart to Be Bilingual.” Newsweek, August 15, 2011, 26.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 131

8/5/15 2:04 PM

132

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Shin, Hyon B., and Robert A. Kominski. Language Use in the United States: 2007, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-12. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, April 2010. Shome, Raka. “Outing Whiteness.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17 (2000): 365–70. Tilton, Sarah, and Joanne Lee-Young. “To Improve Kids’ Chinese, Parents Head to Asia.” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2012. Unmuth, Katherine L. “Immersion Program Gives Early Start en Espanol: H-E-B District Challenges English-Speaking Students to Learn in Spanish.” Dallas Morning News, February 9, 2008. Wiley, Terence G. “Immigrant Language Minorities in the United States.” In Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversity and Change, ed. M. Hellinger and A. Pauwels, 53–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. Yosso, Tara J. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race, Ethnicity, and Education 8 (2005): 69–91.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 132

8/5/15 2:04 PM

6

documenting dreams A Rhetorical Performance of Inclusive Citizenship and Collaborative Expertise Yazmin Lazcano-Pry

The immigrant rights movement must mobilize in support of an inclusive rather than exclusive model of citizenship, argues Beth Baker-Cristales. BakerCristales contends that, unlike the rigid neoliberal model, an inclusive model would adapt to meet the demands of an increasingly diverse nation. However, left unaddressed is how to forge an inclusive model of citizenship that is grounded in day-to-day terms available to individuals typically absent from the debate. Extending Robert Asen’s discourse theory of citizenship as a mode of public engagement, and E. Johanna Hartelius’s rhetorical model of expertise, I contend that the student immigrants of GateWay Early College High School and their principal are experts in inclusive citizenship, and that they perform their expertise by yoking three strategies (what Hartelius calls “congruities”) in order to join a public debate on immigration. In the model of citizenship that the students enact, inclusive citizenship is a decidedly collaborative achievement composed across power differentials within expanding local networks. In these networks, rhetorical citizenship reshapes the national cultural and symbolic landscape through collaborative expertise that aims to redirect the immigration debate. This distinction rests on a notion of citizenship that is sufficiently inclusive to allow transnational individuals to participate in new forms of civic engagement. Civic engagement alone, however, does not grant legal status; scholars have critiqued immigrant rights activists for failing to challenge exclusionary institutional structures while relying on tropes such as the “model citizen” to construct arguments of national belonging. Tania A. Unzueta Carrasco and Hinda Seif note that after the DREAM Act failed in 2010, immigrant rights organizers began to widen their advocacy, particularly in deportation hearings, for individuals falling outside of the model citizen purview. While efforts to move beyond the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 133

8/5/15 2:04 PM

134

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

model-citizen narrative have gained traction in these contexts, Unzueta Carrasco and Seif acknowledge the persistent tension to appeal to the general public for support while advocating for the widest range of undocumented immigrants possible. I argue that while undocumented youths and their advocates fail to contest the myth of the American Dream, their collaborative expertise, as evidenced in Documented Dreams, demonstrates a productive way to conceptualize rhetorical citizenship as situated within exclusionary realities. This conceptualization highlights that the value of collaborative expertise in the construction of rhetorical citizenship is not to dismantle the exclusionary structural barriers immigrants face, but to use rhetorical agency to expand how citizenship in the United States is understood. Conceptualizing citizenship as a rhetorical matter, this chapter revisits Robert Asen’s call to replace the question “What counts as citizenship?” with “How do people enact citizenship?” Asen’s discourse theory of citizenship approaches citizenship as a mode of public engagement. Asen explains that citizenship “highlights agency: someone is doing a deed.” Considering citizenship as a performance rather than exclusively as something citizens possess attends to the multifaceted and dynamic aspects of citizenship. Asen argues that “citizenship may be enacted by non-citizens,” since “citizen engagement cannot be distilled to a set of rights, condition of membership, or allegiance to a cultural tradition”; in fact, “people enact citizenship through their own agency.” Analyzing the relationship between the category of citizen and citizenship itself through a rhetorical lens may inform a more nuanced understanding of both concepts. Immigrants and immigrant rights activists are positioned in the dominant discourse that exceeds them. Hostile perceptions about immigrants in the United States, and the isolationist discourse that often follows, have historically been prompted by the domestic economic needs of Americans. Today, American anxiety about the economy is high. A discourse that channels this anxiety is the “Latino threat narrative.” According to Leo R. Chavez, this narrative is sustained through assumptions that Latinos have no intention of integrating into the United States. Moreover, they plan to “take back” the southwestern region of the United States. This narrative charges that Latinos have criminal tendencies, do not want to learn English, and overburden schools and medical institutions, all while taking jobs away from citizens. Given the risks and hostility undocumented youths face, it is remarkable that they have emerged from the shadows to call attention to an immigration system that many consider broken. Immigrant youth activists mobilized the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 134

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

135

Undocumented and Unafraid Campaign in 2010, and have since participated in various freedom rides, marches, retreats, sit-ins, and mobilization through social media. Claudia A. Anguiano and Karma R. Chávez argue that students advocating for the passage of the DREAM Act have created “an exceptional communicative moment in social movement mobilizing,” risking deportation by publicly advocating for citizenship. As Wayne Campbell Peck, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins argue, US culture rarely perceives young people, let alone undocumented youths, as legitimate public actors. At least this was the case until youths mobilized to promote the DREAM Act. Like other youths mobilized around the DREAM Act, the undocumented youths in my case study position themselves at the center of immigration discourse; significant about their particular work is that it recasts citizenship from a set of legal stipulations (where the government has the upper hand) to a rhetorical achievement (where everyday people set the terms of the debate). Youth activists, as both insiders and outsiders to the United States, offer scholars a unique perspective on public rhetoric. While the Latino threat narrative constructs immigrants as permanent outsiders, the rhetorical appeals of the “American Dream” imaginary construct them as cultural insiders. DREAMERS at all educational levels are caught in a dilemma wherein they must choose either to challenge the American meritocracy (as implied by the American Dream) or follow the status quo and continue to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” In other words, their dilemma is whether to voice the reality that hard work and determination alone do not lead to success for everyone—highlighting their status as undocumented outsiders in the process—or invoke the American Dream, which is beyond their reach, given structural barriers. In the case study that follows, students, in collaboration with other rhetors, craft a rhetorical intervention that transforms this dilemma. In 2006, Arizona voters approved Proposition 300, a referendum stipulating that students unable to prove legal status would be ineligible for financial aid and in-state tuition. Thousands of students, including many at GateWay Early College High School, a charter school in Phoenix, faced the reality of not being able to continue their education. Documented Dreams: A Testimony of the Plight of a Generation of Young Latinos Caught in a Social Dilemma, compiled and edited by Yvonne Watterson, then principal of GateWay, was published in 2008 in response to donations to fund college enrollment. GateWay students wrote letters thanking their benefactors and reassuring them of their sound investment. In Documented Dreams, twenty-eight students between the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 135

8/5/15 2:04 PM

136

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

ages of fifteen and twenty-two tell their stories and give thanks for the support they received in the wake of anti-immigrant legislation, including Proposition 300. Most of the student writers are noncitizens who were brought to the United States from Mexico as babies—circumstances that led them to identify as American. Baker-Cristales’s argument that an inclusive model of citizenship meets the demands of an increasingly diverse nation circulates in Documented Dreams. Most of its student writers self-identify as “students at GateWay,” as “immigrant students,” and as “undocumented students.” They make statements such as “I feel like a citizen” and “I feel as American as many of my friends who were born here.” Luis (seventeen years old) disrupts the clear distinction between his citizenship status and the perceived social legitimacy of his peers when he states, “I had Advanced Placement classes, and dealt with the same subjects as a ‘non-immigrant’ student would.” Not only does Luis call attention to the incongruity of legal status and academic ability, but he also places the category of immigrant at his claim’s center by using it as the norm against which to describe other students. Through this rhetorical move, Luis calls attention to the centrality of the immigrant experience in America’s history and national identity, and highlights the prominence of migration in contemporary life by his very presence in Arizona. Above all, these student writers construct their identity around their educational aims and thus simply refer to themselves as “students.” In this chapter, I argue that although students construct the familiar and limiting trope of the “model citizen” as an important part of their rhetoric, their choice to speak from a compromised social location transforms the trope’s constraints into their rhetorical agency. Granted, in the current legal system, exclusive criteria for citizenship still hold sway. Rhetorical performances of inclusive citizenship may not trump these conditions in the court of law. I aim to show, however, that the rhetorical achievement of inclusive citizenship modeled in Documented Dreams offers a glimpse into what future collaborations between unlikely social actors, with varying degrees of mainstream social status, can look like as catalysts for change. While GateWay students and their sponsors affirm their commitment to the values implied by the American Dream, they simultaneously exert influence in (re)shaping the national cultural and symbolic landscape through their presence as collaborative experts participating in the immigration debate. Here, expertise stems from both holding a professional title and having knowledge of the educational

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 136

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

137

system, as well as first-hand knowledge of the conditions driving people to cross the border and what that experience entails. By attending to the rhetorical dynamics of collaborative expertise within immigration discourse, this chapter emphasizes an effort to complicate an understanding of citizenship that too simplistically relies on the familiar binaries of insiders/outsiders, legitimate/illegal, victims/invaders, experts/subordinated actors. To show how the students’ intervention, the collaborative aspect of the project, and the text Documented Dreams work to disrupt these binaries, I first discuss the relationships among sponsorship, representation, and agency. I then extend three of Hartelius’s rhetorical congruities (expert network, a necessary and fitting response, and expertise and everyday life) to explain how the students at GateWay and their sponsors create their collaborative expertise on the topic of citizenship. My contention is that future applications of collaborative expertise as it relates to rhetorical citizenship and agency may lead to community projects that move beyond going public (i.e., ordinary people making their imprint on public life, imbricating youths’ expertise alongside culturally sanctioned practices of civic participation). Rhetorical citizenship, enacted through collaborative efforts, expands the cultural and symbolic importance of voices on the periphery.

Sponsorship, Representation, and Agency The practice of sponsorship extends awareness, acknowledgment, and belief in the expertise of individuals lacking access to the public stage. In the context of literacy studies, Deborah Brandt describes “sponsors” as “those agents . . . who enable, support, teach, model, recruit, regulate, suppress or withhold literacy, and gain advantage by it in some way.” For example, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Ann Jacobs, and Phillis Wheatley, one of the earliest American poets, all had their writing sanctioned by members of the dominant culture, both before publication and within the publications themselves. For culturally underserved and economically disadvantaged students, educational sponsorship can change the rules of the game. Linda Flower explains, “Learning to take rhetorical action needs sponsors, especially if your schooling envisions more passive roles for you.” Although underrepresented writers typically must rely on some form of sponsorship to assert a public presence, scholarship shows that both they and their sponsors enact rhetorical agency by using a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 137

8/5/15 2:04 PM

138

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

range of strategies that obfuscate the insider/outsider binary and highlight the situated expertise of the writers. The sponsors, who construct the opening sections of Documented Dreams, act as agents who enable the delivery of the students’ letters to the general public. Because sponsors have access to public forums, they control the representation of those whom they sponsor in crucial ways. Documented Dreams is an example of a co-constructed text, in which a historically oppressed rhetor is granted a public voice through the aid of a sponsor who is socially and materially empowered. The tension inherent in this act of representation is the challenge of sponsoring rhetors with nonmainstream rhetorical skills, experiences, and cultural awareness. Because of their privilege, representatives of the dominant culture may not have had the kind of experiences that reveal the parameters of power and language in maintaining the status quo. The challenge is to represent the sponsored rhetors in such a way as to ensure that public audiences gain an understanding of crucial issues and of the rhetors’ unique expertise. Sponsorship can land a marginalized rhetor in a daunting discursive predicament. Studies of “subordinated groups” as well as of “counterpublic spheres” document that marginalized groups do, of course, enact linguistic and rhetorical agency. However, as these studies show, for marginalized rhetors, acts of self-representation often carry insidious consequences—further evidence of systemic subjugation. Michael Warner explains that “a counterpublic maintains at some level, conscious or not, an awareness of its subordinate status”; the agency obtained by counterpublics via social movements exists “in relation to the state.” In response to this predicament, Susanne Hamscha argues that “much more effective than the formation of counterdiscourses are modifications of ‘normal’ culture by way of which these social groups become included in American culture on its imaginary level.” Fully aware of their subordinate status, the students at GateWay enact rhetorical citizenship by collaborating with their sponsors to demonstrate, for a dominant audience, how the scope and meaning of citizenship in the United States is broadened by their active participation. Although counterpublics may be successful in their efforts to gain agency in relation to the state, as Warner asserts, the constraints that marginalized rhetors face are daunting. The limitations challenge scholars of the public sphere to examine what constitutes significant rhetorical work under dire circumstances. Going public under such conditions is unlikely to bring about some sea change in policy reform. Numerous studies bear witness to this fact. For instance, the inner-city residents in Ellen Cushman’s study

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 138

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

139

traded tools for navigating bureaucratic landmines; but Cushman is the first to acknowledge that these tools may not be effective beyond “the context of gatekeeping exchanges.” Similarly, the nuanced arguments of CabriniGreen’s public housing residents failed to forestall the demolition of the complex because they themselves remained on the periphery of public debates. Likewise, the service-learning initiative that David Coogan describes in “Counterpublics in Public Housing” successfully produced public writing to circulate the achievements of unsung community leaders; but these texts alone could not translate a “cross-cultural understanding” of the confl ict and its stakeholders into more just and hospitable urban housing practices. The inner-city teens featured in Flower’s scholarship were often rhetorically savvy, yet their lack of mastery of accepted and sanctioned writing conventions compromised their credibility with well-schooled adult audiences. Commenting on subordinated rhetors’ tendency to represent themselves through hero or victim narratives, Higgins and Brush observe that this strategy perpetuates the very stereotypes that malign rhetors’ character in the public eye. Hector Amaya, reflecting on immigrants’ “performing acculturation,” acknowledges the paradox of his participation as a Latino immigrant “in the reconstitution of white middle-class values and mainstream ideas of social worth.” Amaya highlights the latent tensions that immigrants experience in their attempts to represent themselves within a system that actively constrains their identity. Despite these obstacles, limitations, and paradoxes, an opportunity exists to disrupt, if not outright dismantle, binaries such as insider/outsider, legitimate/illegal, victims/invaders. I argue that dismantling such binaries constitutes significant rhetorical work. As an example of this kind of work, Documented Dreams takes its place in a long tradition of what some have termed “hybrid texts,” “textual alliances,” “bi-cultural documents,” and “relational narratives” between subordinated voices and their sponsors from the dominant culture. Documented Dreams, an example of a collaboratively written text, may be seen as a product of the current wave of anti-immigrant media depictions. These depictions have created an exigence to shape how immigrants represent themselves and are represented in public forums. Distinctions between “us” and “them” are the strongest or most pronounced on the border, on the periphery, which typically leads to conflict and exclusion. However, as GateWay students and their sponsors show, performing collaborative expertise blurs these binaries, reshaping rigid boundaries into spaces capable of fostering “stranger sociability.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 139

8/5/15 2:04 PM

140

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Constructing Ethos Through Expert Networks GateWay students and their sponsors write themselves into a system of expertise within immigration discourse through a collaborative effort to assume rhetorical agency, and, just as important, have that agency validated. For the undocumented students at GateWay, rhetorical agency is generated through the act itself of participation in public discourse. For their sponsors, rhetorical agency is generated through the acknowledgment of the presence and expertise of undocumented students at GateWay. As Hartelius states, expert networks are strategic partnerships forged with the dual intent to bolster the suasive power of each participant and to take part in shaping expertise itself in the public imaginary. The expert network forged by Watterson, GateWay educators, and students (US-born, documented, and without legal status), is significant in part because it acknowledges, validates, and circulates the knowledge that undocumented students possess about citizenship and what it means to be American. The expert network constructed also engages citizenship in what Asen calls “generative” ways: “More voices bolster public agendas because they raise distinct perspectives and encourage different ways of participating.” In this case, undocumented youths perform their citizenship by contributing their own expertise alongside their sponsors’ in a public forum previously lacking their perspectives and insights. As the principal of GateWay high school, Watterson establishes her place and the basis of her collaboration in an expert network in the acknowledgments section of Documented Dreams. She states, “To my brave immigrant students, I marvel at your daily triumphs over adversity. To Noemi, on her way to becoming a nurse and one day a pediatrician who will care for the grandchild of someone who voted for Proposition 300, thank you for teaching me the meaning of moral courage.” Readers are informed that Noemi, an undocumented student, teaches Watterson the lesson of striving against all odds to give back to one’s community, even when that community is hostile. Watterson’s acknowledgment of Noemi builds readers’ trust in the students’ expertise, given her position as a leader in education. Moreover, the undocumented students, as rhetors in this network, elevate the legitimacy of Watterson’s ethos through their own unique ethos; they are recognized members of their communities by virtue of their perseverance and accomplishments. Noemi pens the first letter of the collection, in which she strategically associates herself with Watterson: “In my Junior year, I obtained 18 more credits adding up to a total of 33 college credits. What a gratifying experience! My

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 140

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

141

family could not be prouder! Even the principal was proud of me, and presented me with an award for stewardship of the early college philosophy.” The award grants Noemi stewardship of a philosophy grounded in the values of ambition and hard work. Noemi constructs herself as embodying the characteristics needed to achieve the American Dream. Not only does Noemi establish herself as worthy of her family’s pride, but “even the principal” recognizes her with an award. Noemi’s words highlight her perception that it would be unlikely for someone in Watterson’s position to be proud of someone like her. The youths featured in Documented Dreams, along with their sponsors, collaboratively build expertise and strengthen their expert network by strengthening their ethos, which is to say, they write about how they deepen one another’s knowledge base as well as how they help one another become stronger in character. Strengthening their ethos increases the rhetorical currency available to them. In the “about” section, which describes the school’s achievements and explains the impetus for the publication, Watterson describes GateWay as “my school, the only early college high school in Phoenix.” Listing GateWay’s successes further establishes her legitimacy as well as that of the students and teachers: “In 2006, GateWay Early College was recognized by the Arizona State Board as an example of the positive impact of charter schools in our state. Additionally, the school was recognized by the Department of Education Directors Institute for Leadership award in 2005, and the Impact to Classrooms and Learning award in 2006 for our Check & Connect advisory program. . . . Our Service Learning teacher, Amanda Patrie, was the first charter school teacher in Arizona to be recognized as a finalist for the prestigious Arizona Teacher of the Year award.” In addition to highlighting several ways in which GateWay is successful, Watterson extends her expert network by noting that a finalist for the Arizona Teacher of the Year award is part of her team. Enhancing the school’s ethos as well as her own is a necessary rhetorical move insofar as expert networks are critical for publications like Documented Dreams to influence an audience. Various media outlets played a significant role in shaping the experiences of GateWay students as a result of Proposition 300. Choosing to cover the students’ personal stories, journalists validated the voices and expertise of GateWay students and their sponsors. In the acknowledgments, Watterson thanks the individuals responsible for delivering Documented Dreams to readers: the Arizona Republic; Horizonte, a PBS program focused on Arizona issues; the New York Times; the Sunday World, and the Antrim Times, two publications in Northern Ireland, Watterson’s own country of origin. Watterson explains

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 141

8/5/15 2:04 PM

142

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

that she turned to the media after witnessing the devastating effect of Prop 300 on her students. Ed Montini of the Arizona Republic wrote a column on August 21, 2007, about the educational goals that Prop 300 compromised for many GateWay students. After a deluge of negative responses to the column, journalist Laurie Roberts attempted to put a human face to the students at GateWay. Her column features José, a GateWay graduate who earned a high school diploma and an associate’s degree. He states, “The stereotype that people have about immigrants is that we’re all criminals, that we’re all drug addicts and gangsters. . . . They don’t see these faces, that we’re students fighting for our success.” Undocumented youths at GateWay and their sponsors are not the only ones doing the rhetorical work of strengthening their social network. Students born in the United States as well as those with legal residency also contributed letters to Documented Dreams to strengthen the credibility of their peers and, by extension, the network itself: Luis, 17: One of my long-time friends, who has steered clear of wrongdoing his entire life, is a model citizen in my eyes. We have attended elementary school together, played sports, studied together, taken college courses together. Prop 300 has created a gap between us, a gap that your donation might help close. Jenny Herrera, 17: Now I was a “legal resident.” The only thing that ruined my happiness was that many of my friends were still undocumented; friends I had grown up with, played with, laughed with, cried with, and learned with. Friends who were no different from me, friends who will graduate with me next Spring. Things grew worse for these friends when the impact of Proposition 300 meant that they could no longer take college classes. Jenny and Luis disrupt the legitimate/illegal binary through their testimony of their peers’ citizenship. Luis disrupts his friend’s “illegal” classification by calling him a “model citizen.” Jenny, while she is now a “legal resident,” notes that her friends who remained undocumented were “no different” from her. The rhetorical work done here illustrates Asen’s call to reflect on both the category of citizen and the processes of citizenship in order to fully understand both. Jenny and Luis reformulate the category of citizen by highlighting how citizenship is enacted by their undocumented peers.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 142

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

143

While Watterson’s expertise may be characterized by her own ethos as an educator and principal, GateWay students’ expertise lies partly in their knowledge of the educational system, demonstrated through their academic success, and partly in their first-hand knowledge of the conditions that drive families to cross the border. Together, Watterson and her students dismantle the insider/outsider binary in the following ways: Watterson, as an “insider,” has access to the public stage. GateWay students are clear “outsiders” in this regard, as their position on immigration is absent in public discourse. Undocumented youths are “insiders” to the experience of the border—what drives people to cross it and the experience of doing so. Watterson, an immigrant herself, came to the United States as an adult to teach, rather than to escape poverty. By contrast, the undocumented youths’ expertise consists of knowing how to thrive in a dominant culture that does not recognize their value or even their existence. Through her connection with her students, their families, and their stories, Watterson becomes a witness of their “moral courage.” As such, she becomes an “insider” with a kind of ethos to which she did not previously have access. Watterson respects her students’ lived experiences and their academic success given their particular circumstances and social location; the journalists covering the students’ stories validate their voices and expertise regarding what it means to be a US citizen. The validation of how these students enact citizenship by their various sponsors represents an effort to create an inclusive model of citizenship. The students’ sponsors affirm their commitment to “interaction itself,” which, Asen argues, privileges “norms of inclusion and fairness.” As a collaborative expert network, GateWay students and their various sponsors carve out a space within immigration discourse that expands the notion of how citizenship is enacted, and by whom, in the public’s mind.

A Necessary and Fitting Response In Documented Dreams, the students emphatically assure their readers that they are not the stereotypes circulated about them in the media. In fact, as they claim, they offer reassurance for the anxiety felt about their presence in Arizona. Enacting Hartelius’s “necessary and fitting response” rhetorical congruity—the rhetorical move wherein the expert strategically offers the answer to a problem—the students call attention to the general population’s fears of immigrants in order to allay them.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 143

8/5/15 2:04 PM

144

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Daniel, 18: I want to be successful to prove that I am not a criminal because I was brought here as a child, and that I just want to help the country in which I was raised. Anali, 17: This education is going to be so helpful not just for me, but for people like you who need an improved Arizona with bright, productive, educated workers. My goal is to give back to Arizona by becoming a Math teacher. I know our state is in dire need of Math teachers, especially those who are bilingual! Daniel is motivated to be successful by the negative stereotype classifying him as a criminal. Although Daniel seeks to persuade a powerful audience of his innocence when he states that he was brought to the United States without a choice, his reasoning implicates the actions of the adults who made the decision for him. This is a common appeal that reveals the limited effectiveness of the “model citizen” narrative to account for the diversity of immigrant experiences. Anali is more specific about how she will contribute: fulfilling the state’s need for qualified teachers. These student writers explicitly acknowledge the Latino threat narrative—that they don’t know English, that they have no intention of learning English, that they are delinquents, that instead of becoming a part of the United States, they plan to take it over—and then refute the narrative. Their rhetorical move is aimed first at acknowledging the powerful anxiety the public has about their presence, and then demonstrating through their writing, accomplishments, and intentions that this debilitating anxiety is unfounded. As their letters show, these student writers are acutely aware of the need to address the binaries within which their identities are constructed. In addition to the insider/outsider binary, they also work to dismantle the victims/invaders binary. There is a thin line that they must straddle, however, when pursuing this goal, because they risk going too far into the hero/victim narrative. The challenge of creating a “fitting” response is to create a narrative that arises from a specific historical context in order to respond effectively to current rhetorical demands. Higgins and Brush argue that personal narratives are one way in which subordinated groups gain a public voice, especially when rhetorical demands arise that directly affect them, such as an opportunity to enter the public debate on welfare reform. In order for these narratives to be successful, Higgins and Brush argue, writers must resist the hero/victim narrative that leaves out important contextual, historical information. The

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 144

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

145

student writers of Documented Dreams carefully avoid the superficial hero/ victim narratives, which Higgins and Brush caution against, by telling their readers about their lives, where they come from, and what motivates them. One student nods to a reality beyond black and white when she states, “I have heard in the news recently that some say immigrants are simply terrorists or that they just want to ‘steal our jobs.’ It is true that there are many people who do not do what is right, but there are many who do.” This student writer knows that a fitting response acknowledges real circumstances so as not to be easily dismissed by skeptical readers. In order to demonstrate just how connected they are to their country and various communities, these student writers directly address the fear that some in the dominant culture feel about their presence; they highlight the ways in which they steadfastly participate in and contribute to their home.

Expertise and Everyday Life Nearly every letter in Documented Dreams contains a statement about the writer’s connection to his/her country, community, and school. Moreover, the letters address readers with affiliative greetings: “Donor,” “Friend,” “Hero,” “Early College Supporter,” “Champion,” and “Kind Stranger.” These greetings imply that the students contribute to the fabric of their country, state, and local communities, thereby showing that they are insiders, recognizing their audience’s values. The students make a solid case for their expertise in everyday life in the United States, specifically in Arizona, yet they must refute the construction of themselves as outsiders. Throughout the rest of the publication, students explain in their own words their connection to the United States and their plans to make a contribution to their home: Daniel, 18: My dream is to become a Level 5 Architect, and to ultimately design humanitarian projects. I have been inspired by Habitat for Humanity. I want to help support my community as much as I can, because I consider myself an important part of it. I recognize, however, that others may see me as little more than a pest. Brenda, 15: Arizona is my home. I have a family here, a house often filled with friends and laughter. GateWay is where I want to do my very best,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 145

8/5/15 2:04 PM

146

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

to accomplish my dream of becoming a doctor. How can I go back to a place that is foreign to me? Pablo, 15: I have been very active in my community, volunteering at St. Mary’s Food Bank for example. . . . As a student, I did my best to earn good grades. I made Honor Roll all through eighth grade; I also received a Citizenship award and a medal. I still believe I am a good citizen even though I am considered illegal. Their expertise is grounded in their connection to the audience through the everyday, sharing notions of home and similar values. Although they perceive themselves as cultural insiders, the long history of antipathy toward Mexicans in this country keeps them perpetual outsiders—despite the history of the region, their character, determination, loyalty, and talents. Belief in the power and promise of education, a value of the mundane and mainstream, leads GateWay students to establish their expertise through academic accomplishments: Jose, 17: I was able to earn 47 college credits by the end of my junior year! . . . Now I am only 15 credits shy of my Associate’s Degree in General Studies. I am the first in my family to graduate from college. Maria, 16: English was no problem for me. I thought it was awesome to be able to learn a second language, a unique experience that has resulted in me being able to express myself with confidence with others in English. My attendance is good; my grades are more than good; I love learning, and to be honest, I just don’t imagine myself doing too little for my future, knowing that I can be successful. Anali, 17: All through elementary school, I received award after award, including those for attendance, citizenship, and excellent academic performance. When I was promoted from my elementary school, I got a check for $100. I was so happy and so proud of my work! I knew I was ready for high school. Pretty soon, I would realize I was ready to take college classes too, and I have successfully completed nine college credits. Jesus E., 16: I’m barely 16 years old, I work two jobs, and still I go to school. Also, I was able to finish my Freshman year with a 3.8 GPA and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 146

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

147

3 college credits earned. I’m speechless. I don’t know how to thank this school that, before Prop 300, could pay for me to take college classes and earn college credits. The rhetorical moves in the excerpts are indicative of belonging on numerous counts, anchoring the students’ identities in the everyday. First, students establish a trajectory of academic success that often begins as early as elementary school. Second, they demonstrate willingness to do the hard work of thriving in the US school system while juggling family obligations and parttime employment. Third, the students reflect the resiliency and optimism of what is sometimes characterized as the immigrant—and American—“spirit.” Several write about their experience learning English. Knowing that they are rhetorically constructed in the dominant public’s mind as unwilling to learn the language, students like Maria emphasize the opposite and construct a different view: learning English is not a problem, and speaking it is a badge of honor. Students also establish their authority of the everyday through what Hartelius calls “witness expertise,” wherein expertise “exists in the persuasive fabric of personal experience.” GateWay students old enough to remember completing the journey to the United States with their families construct their witness expertise through embodiment. Much like witness experts providing first-hand accounts of their traumatic experience with natural disasters, these students describe the trauma they experienced bodily when making the journey as children. Noemi, 17: Our journey through the desert was long and very difficult. The desert can be very cold at night. I remember walking for eight hours. Much of the way I carried my little brother. The night after we arrived in America, we finally saw our dad! Finally, we could throw our arms around him and hug him tight. I just remember his arms weren’t long enough to reach around all of us. Josue, 15: Why am I here? Well, life in Mexico was very difficult for my parents. They had to drop out because their parents did not have enough money to keep them in school. My parents had to work in order to get money so we could eat. Hoping for a better life, they decided to cross the border. It took us one night to cross the border. It was hard because we had to encounter animals and get through a lot of thorny bushes. It was

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 147

8/5/15 2:04 PM

148

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

so dark we hardly could see. I was at the front because I was the youngest there, only 8 years old. We were all badly bruised, and injured, especially my mom, because she wanted to protect us. It was really a scary experience for us, but there were other people who lost family members in the desert. Noemi’s account bears witness to the arduous journey she and her family took to reunite with her father, who already lived in the United States. She builds her ethos by mentioning that she carried her younger brother—indicating that she puts family before herself. Josue, on the other hand, directly addresses a question he believes is likely to be on readers’ minds: “Why am I here?” He explains that a life of poverty in Mexico, rather than a penchant for crime, drove his parents to cross the border. Like Noemi, he gives evidence of his concern for others when he describes the suffering his mother endured for her children’s sake; he acknowledges that his family did not, unlike some other families, pay the ultimate price for crossing. Noemi’s and Josue’s witness accounts inform readers who may not otherwise be aware of the circumstances driving families to leave their home. These accounts bolster their positions as experts in the material realities of the border, which drive people to risk so much to cross into the hope for a better life.

Conclusion Although GateWay students and their sponsors operate within asymmetrical power relations, they are able to perform collaborative expertise in part by sharing common experiences and addressing a common need. Watterson’s belief in the relationship between human rights and education prompted her collaborative building of expertise with her students. Similarly, her students share this belief in large part thanks to their immersion in the American Dream narrative. The students’ conditioning is apparent in their everyday life through their dedication to a brighter future. The collaboration represented in Documented Dreams shows that to increase their rhetorical currency, student and teacher alike must strengthen each other in their expert network. Students take rhetorical agency through their “necessary and fitting response” when they acknowledge the deep anxiety felt toward them by the dominant culture. They explain that, rather than “invade” the United States, they are deeply invested in a country they have known since they were children.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 148

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

149

On the other hand, Watterson’s belief in her students’ contribution to immigration discourse, coupled with her desire to document her students’ dreams, spurred her to seek ways to collaborate with them so that they could enter the public debate together. Her example is one way for educators to participate with youths as catalysts of change. Documented Dreams reflects how acknowledging the ways in which youths already navigate and contribute to their communities can lead to more collaborative efforts that generate new, more nuanced understandings of citizenship. Community projects following the spirit of this collaborative effort could engage youths as well as other underrepresented social groups in dismantling ineffective and oppressive binary distinctions, such as insider/outsider and us/them. Documented Dreams, interpreted through Asen’s discourse theory of citizenship as a mode of public engagement and Hartelius’s rhetoric-of-expertise framework, offers the field of rhetorical studies an opportunity to reflect on theoretical assumptions about what it means to be a citizen. Through their particular enactment of citizenship, the students at GateWay and their sponsors challenge an exclusive model of citizenship that fails to consider critically the relationship between citizen and citizenship beyond a question of the possession of rights and status. In addition, their collaborative navigation of the rhetorical bind they find themselves in serves to further discussion of rhetorical citizenship. Students at GateWay are not naïve about the reality of immense economic disparity; they are well aware that the odds are heavily stacked against them. Still, they believe in an American Dream that may be reached through education. They have mentors at GateWay who reinforce their potential to teach others moral character—something assumed to belong to an educated person, yet not necessarily taught in schools. The expertise that these GateWay students enact stems from their approach to the impossible situation they find themselves in, which is to excel as best they can in school and to give back to their communities. Their letters contain examples of creative problem solving to make the best of being stuck in the rhetorical bind of needing to prove their assimilation of US values, yet also needing to critique an oppressive immigration system. The collaborative expertise and rhetorical agency illustrated in Documented Dreams are found in the ways that students and their sponsors disrupt simplistic binaries that fail to reflect a multifaceted notion of citizenship. Although one may argue that collaboration actually filters and shapes student voices for the exclusive benefit of sponsors and publishers, the student writers demonstrate

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 149

8/5/15 2:04 PM

150

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

their command of the opportunity to address a public largely ignorant of their stories. This text illustrates collaboration that does not negate power differentials or economic realities, but rather offers a model of how to question and broaden a fraught concept such as citizenship through the acknowledgment and rhetorical application of expertise. As Flower would characterize it, Documented Dreams alerts the public “to the presence of actual acts of rhetorical agency within a constraining and contingent world.” Public perception influences public policy, something that Wendy, age sixteen, knows all too well: “I just want to show everyone that I am worth their investment, that I hold the future in my hands too.” note s 1. Beth Baker-Cristales, “Mediated Resistance: The Construction of Neoliberal Citizenship in the Immigrant Rights Movement,” Latino Studies 7 (2009): 60–82. 2. See E. Johanna Hartelius, The Rhetoric of Expertise (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). 3. William Keith and Paula Cossart, “The Search for ‘Real’ Democracy: Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation in France and the United States, 1870–1940,” in Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation, ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012), 46. In this study, I use Keith and Cossart’s definition of rhetorical citizenship: “Rhetorical citizenship is that set of communicative and deliberative practices that in a particular culture and political system allow citizens to enact and embody their citizenship” (46). 4. See Baker-Cristales, “Mediated Resistance,” 78–79; Claudia A. Anguiano and Karma R. Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream,” in Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz?, ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011), 81–99. 5. Tania A. Unzueta Carrasco and Hinda Seif, “Disrupting the Dream: Undocumented Youth Reframe Citizenship and Deportability Through Anti-Deportation Activism,” Latino Studies 12 (2014): 279–99. 6. Ibid., 279. 7. Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (2004): 191. 8. Ibid., 194. 9. Ibid., 203–4. 10. See Louis DeSipio and Rodolfo O. de la Garza, “A Nation of Immigrants: Continuing Dilemmas,” in Making Americans, Remaking America: Immigration and Immigrant Policy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), 4. When I refer to immigrants in this study, I mean people who move from one country and enter another, as DeSipio and de la Garza define the term. 11. See Leo R. Chavez, The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008). 12. Ibid., 2. 13. See P. J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002); Jonathan Xavier Inda, “Foreign Bodies: Migrants, Parasites, and the Pathological Nation,” Discourse 22,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 150

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

151

no. 3 (2000): 46–62; J. F. Perea, ed., Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States (New York: New York University Press, 1997); Otto Santa Ana, Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). 14. Kent Wong et al., “Preface,” in Undocumented and Unafraid, ed. Kent Wong et al. (Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, 2012), x–xi. 15. Anguiano and Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse,” 81–82. The authors argue that social position is an important consideration when determining whether the normalization of the American Dream by undocumented youths resists hegemony. 16. Wayne Campbell Peck, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins, “Community Literacy,” College Composition and Communication 46, no. 2 (1995): 199–222. 17. Anguiano and Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse.” 18. See Yvonne Watterson, ed., Documented Dreams: A Testimony of the Plight of a Generation of Young Latinos Caught in a Social Dilemma (Mesa, AZ: Hispanic Institute of Social Issues, 2008). 19. Ibid., 15. 20. Ibid., 11. 21. Robert Jensen, “Race Words and Race Stories,” in Jensen, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism, and White Privilege. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2005), 3. Jensen uses the category “non-white” to describe people of color in order to emphasize the political dimension of these categories as well as “the depravity of white supremacy.” 22. See Anguiano and Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse.” 23. Hartelius, Rhetoric of Expertise, 18–29. The author explicates the rhetorical strategies, i.e., the “rhetorical congruities,” that experts use to do their work. 24. Deborah Brandt, “Changing Literacy,” Teachers College Record 105, no. 2 (2003): 247. 25. Linda Flower, “Affirming a Contested Agency,” in Flower, Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008), 217. 26. See David Coogan, “Counterpublics in Public Housing: Reframing the Politics of Service-Learning,” College English 67, no. 5 (2005): 461–82; Ellen Cushman, The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community (New York: SUNY Press, 1998); Flower, Community Literacy; Lorraine D. Higgins and Lisa D. Brush, “Personal Experience Narrative and Public Debate: Writing the Wrongs of Welfare,” College Composition and Communication 57, no. 4 (2006): 694–729. 27. Michael Warner, Publics and Counterpublics (New York: Zone Books, 2002), 119, 124. 28. Susanne Hamscha, “Setting the Stage—or, Performing ‘America’ on the Streets of Philadelphia,” in Hamscha, The Fiction of America: Performance and the Cultural Imaginary in Literature and Film (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2013), 75–76. 29. See Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen, “Introduction: Citizenship as a Rhetorical Practice,” in Kock and Villadsen, Rhetorical Citizenship, 1–2. The authors argue that rhetoric “is at the core of being a citizen” by way of participation and debate. In this way, they view citizenship as being “rhetorical citizenship.” 30. Cushman, Struggle and the Tools, 33. 31. David Fleming, “Subjects of the Inner City: Writing the People of Cabrini-Green,” in Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, ed. Martin Nystrand and John Duff y (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 238. 32. Coogan, “Counterpublics in Public Housing,” 480. 33. Flower, Community Literacy, 193; Higgins and Brush, “Personal Experience Narrative.” 34. Higgins and Brush, “Personal Experience Narrative.” 35. Hector Amaya, “Performing Acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o Immigrant Self,” Text and Performance Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2007): 210.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 151

8/5/15 2:04 PM

152

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

36. Cushman, preface to Struggle and the Tools, xx. In response to critiques that the linguistic expertise of Quayville residents failed to bring about any systematic change, Flower proposes a broader understanding of critical consciousness—one that also views daily, on-the-ground rhetorical work as a significant challenge to institutional oppression. 37. See Graziella Parati, “Looking Through Non-Western Eyes: Immigrant Women’s Autobiographical Writing in Italian,” in Writing New Identities: Gender, Nation, and Immigration in Contemporary Europe, ed. Gisela Brinker-Gabler and Sidonie Smith (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 118–42. 38. See Silvia Marchetti, “Decolonizing Italy: Migration Italy and the Tradition of the Picturesque,” Italianist 29 (2009): 400–424. 39. See Fred L. Gardaphe, Leaving Little Italy: Essaying Italian American Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004). 40. Susan Stanford Friedman, “Beyond White and Other: Relationality and Narratives of Race in Feminist Discourse,” Signs 21, no. 1 (1995): 40. 41. Pedro Lasch, Jean Franco, and Renato Rosaldo, “Two Virgins That Meet on the Same Path: A Conversation About Devotion, Neighbors, and Storytelling,” e-Misférica 5, no. 1 (2008). 42. Flower, Community Literacy, 41. Flower defines stranger sociability as a “demonstration of a public dialogue that uses difference as a resource for inquiry and decision making.” 43. Hartelius, Rhetoric of Expertise, 19. 44. Asen, “Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” 199. 45. Watterson, Documented Dreams, vii. 46. Hartelius, Rhetoric of Expertise, 12. I refer here to Hartelius’s use of the Aristotelian definition of aretē, or virtue: “it is the closest measure of a speaker’s identity, denoting personal excellence in producing and preserving the ultimate good.” 47. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 3. 48. Ibid., xi. 49. Ibid. 50. Ed Montini, “Unintended Consequences of Prop. 300?,” Arizona Republic, August 21, 2007. 51. Laurie Roberts, “The Choice Is Ours to Help Undocumented Students,” Arizona Republic, September 15, 2007. 52. Ibid. 53. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 52. 54. Ibid., 22. 55. Asen, “Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” 201. 56. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 5. 57. Ibid., 44. 58. Anguiano and Chávez, “DREAMers’ Discourse,” 90–91. The authors point out that the “‘no fault’ migration or visa violation serves as one of the defining characteristics of DREAMer identity.” 59. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 37. 60. President Obama’s announcement in 2012 of a policy change for DREAMers like these students signals the only light to brighten this otherwise dark situation. Even so, policy analysts are debating implications and consequences that are yet to be seen. 61. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 5. 62. Ibid., 21. 63. Ibid., 46. 64. Vicki L. Ruiz, “Nuestra América: Latino History as United States History,” Journal of American History 93, no. 3 (2006): 655–72. Ruiz states that the “Black Legend” is partly to blame for the fact that “U.S. historians frequently give .  .  . the region .  .  . no more than a passing

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 152

8/5/15 2:04 PM

documenting dreams

|

153

glance.” According to Ruiz, “with roots in the Reformation and in the competition for New World empires, the Black Legend counterpoised virtuous English families against rapacious Spanish conquistadores” (656). 65. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 8. 66. Ibid., 39. 67. Ibid., 44. 68. Ibid., 55. 69. Hartelius, Rhetoric of Expertise, 86. 70. Ibid., 69–101. 71. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 3. 72. Ibid., 24. 73. See June Jordan, “Report from the Bahamas,” in Jordan, On Call: Political Essays (Boston: South End Press, 1985), 1–49. Jordan states that common need is what ultimately unites people from different backgrounds and persuasions. 74. Flower, Community Literacy, 196. 75. Watterson, Documented Dreams, 51.

bibl io gr a ph y Amaya, Hector. “Performing Acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o Immigrant Self.” Text and Performance Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2007): 194–212. Anguiano, Claudia A., and Karma R. Chávez. “DREAMers’ Discourse: Young Latino/a Immigrants and the Naturalization of the American Dream.” In Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de una Voz?, ed. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette M. Calafell, 81–99. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. Asen, Robert. “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (2004): 189–211. Baker-Cristales, Beth. “Mediated Resistance: The Construction of Neoliberal Citizenship in the Immigrant Rights Movement.” Latino Studies 7 (2009): 60–82. Brandt, Deborah. “Changing Literacy.” Teachers College Record 105, no. 2 (2003): 245–60. Buchanan, P. J. The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002. Chavez, Leo R. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. Coogan, David. “Counterpublics in Public Housing: Reframing the Politics of ServiceLearning.” College English 67, no. 5 (2005): 461–82. Cushman, Ellen. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998. DeSipio, Louis, and Rodolfo O. de la Garza. Making Americans, Remaking America: Immigration and Immigrant Policy. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. Fleming, David. “Subjects of the Inner City: Writing the People of Cabrini-Green.” In Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, ed. Martin Nystrand and John Duff y, 207–44. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Flower, Linda. Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. Friedman, Susan Stanford. “Beyond White and Other: Relationality and Narratives of Race in Feminist Discourse.” Signs 21, no. 1 (1995): 1–49. Gardaphe, Fred L. Leaving Little Italy: Essaying Italian American Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 153

8/5/15 2:04 PM

154

|

identity struggles and DREAMers

Hamscha, Susanne. “Setting the Stage—or, Performing ‘America’ on the Streets of Philadelphia.” In Hamscha, The Fiction of America: Performance and the Cultural Imaginary in Literature and Film, 35–82. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2013. Hartelius, E. Johanna. The Rhetoric of Expertise. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. Higgins, Lorraine D., and Lisa D. Brush. “Personal Experience Narrative and Public Debate: Writing the Wrongs of Welfare.” College Composition and Communication 57, no. 4 (2006): 694–729. Inda, Jonathan Xavier. “Foreign Bodies: Migrants, Parasites, and the Pathological Nation.” Discourse 22, no. 3 (2000): 46–62. Jensen, Robert. The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism, and White Privilege. San Francisco: City Lights, 2005. Jordan, June. On Call: Political Essays. Boston: South End Press, 1985. Keith, William, and Paula Cossart. “The Search for ‘Real’ Democracy: Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation in France and the United States, 1870–1940.” In Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation, ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen, 46–60. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012. Kock, Christian, and Lisa S. Villadsen. “Introduction: Citizenship as a Rhetorical Practice.” In Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation, ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen, 1–10. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012. Lasch, Pedro, Jean Franco, and Renato Rosaldo. “Two Virgins That Meet on the Same Path: A Conversation About Devotion, Neighbors, and Storytelling.” e-Misférica 5, no. 1 (2008). Marchetti, Silvia. “Decolonizing Italy: Migration Italy and the Tradition of the Picturesque.” Italianist 29 (2009): 400–424. Montini, Ed. “Unintended Consequences of Prop. 300?” Arizona Republic, August 21, 2007. Parati, Graziella. “Looking Through Non-Western Eyes: Immigrant Women’s Autobiographical Writing in Italian.” In Writing New Identities: Gender, Nation, and Immigration in Contemporary Europe, ed. Gisela Brinker-Gabler and Sidonie Smith, 118–42. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Peck, Wayne Campbell, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins. “Community Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 46, no. 2 (1995): 199–222. Perea, J. F., ed. Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States. New York: New York University Press, 1997. Roberts, Laurie. “The Choice Is Ours to Help Undocumented Students.” Arizona Republic, September 15, 2007. Ruiz, Vicki L. “Nuestra América: Latino History as United States History.” Journal of American History 93, no. 3 (2006): 655–72. Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Unzueta Carrasco, Tania A., and Hinda Seif. “Disrupting the Dream: Undocumented Youth Reframe Citizenship and Deportability Through Anti-Deportation Activism.” Latino Studies 12 (2014): 279–99. Warner, Michael. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2002. Watterson, Yvonne, ed. Documented Dreams: A Testimony of the Plight of a Generation of Young Latinos Caught in a Social Dilemma. Mesa, AZ: Hispanic Institute of Social Issues, 2008. Wong, Kent, Janna Shadduck-Hernández, Victor Narro, and Abel Valenzuela Jr. “Preface.” In Undocumented and Unafraid, ed. Kent Wong et al., viii–xi. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, 2012.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 154

8/5/15 2:04 PM

7

constituting enemies through fear The Rhetoric of Exclusionary Nationalism in the Control of “Un-American” Immigrant Populations Emily Ironside and Lisa M. Corrigan

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door! —poem by Emma Lazarus inscribed on the Statue of Liberty

While Emma Lazarus’s poem symbolizes acceptance and hospitality for hopeful immigrants journeying to the United States, many immigrants do not find the welcome described in this poem but instead encounter a narrative of American citizenship from which they are rhetorically excluded. American conquest, combined with the pattern of early settlement, “created a dominant, almost exclusive Anglo-Saxon culture” through the nineteenth century that sought to eliminate cultural competitors, especially immigrants. Often referred to as “minorities,” these competitors have been perceived by Anglo-Saxon leaders as dangerous ethnic threats to the political balance of power. The stronger the perceived ethnic threat, the more nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions develop within the dominant culture. As immigration to the United States increased, Anglo-Saxon leaders legalized rhetorical systems of exclusion through policy in order to reinforce their established dominance within an increasingly homogeneous national narrative. This institutionalization of an Anglo-Saxon rhetorical system of exclusion through policy can be traced to those policymakers who offered the first legislative definition of American nationality in the Naturalization Act of 1790. The act limited naturalization privileges to “free white” immigrants, requiring one to be racially identified as “white” and to claim two years of residency before citizenship could be acquired. Michael Omi and Howard Winant argue that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was the country’s first “racial policy,” as it excluded select populations based on their racial heritage from the privileges

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 157

8/5/15 2:04 PM

158

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

of citizenship, thereby excluding racial “Others” from the American national narrative. By targeting nonwhite immigrants for exclusion as threats to national homogeneity, the act formalized “Othering” as a means of regulating the citizenry. Arguing in support of the Naturalization Act of 1790, Alexander Hamilton asserted, “The safety of the republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment. . . . Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government.” Nonwhite immigrants brought with them customs that allegedly endangered the formation of a white national identity. Policymakers therefore ensured that residency requirements promoted assimilation into the Anglo-Saxon narrative during an era of nation building. Because the residency requirements restricted eligibility for naturalization on the basis of “whiteness,” Hamilton explicitly relegated nonwhites to an inferior status, institutionalizing a white collectivity of national belonging and maintaining national exclusivity through citizenship for centuries to follow. Hamilton was among the first formal narrators of the anglicized American national narrative, postulating that a homogenous Anglo-Saxon identity was the key to a successful nation. This dominant narrative, crafted through early legislation, was premised upon “exclusionary nationalism,” a rhetorical strategy by which members of a preferred system of racial and class hierarchies produce a dominant national narrative to maintain power. Exclusionary nationalism serves as a rhetorical heuristic enacted by the dominant majority through the rhetoric of nationhood and national identity. In emerging ethnically diverse nations, policymakers use exclusionary nationalism as a way to establish a dominant ruling class that reflects the majority language, culture, and race. Where exclusionary nationalism characterizes the national narrative, ethnic and racial strife over citizenship is historically intrinsic. In this chapter, we use Eithne Luibhéid’s work to examine the narrative of exclusionary nationalism as a rhetorical heuristic by which immigration policy has been constructed over time. We argue that narratives of exclusionary nationalism emerge throughout the history of the United States; and while they adapt over time to shifting political tides as well as demographics, they consistently favor the white elite within American society, granting it the power rhetorically to construct and enforce a hegemonic narrative of what it means to be American. We identify four key topoi of exclusionary nationalism—assimilationism, racism, xenophobia, and classism—

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 158

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

159

and examine how these topoi rhetorically constitute the overarching narrative of American identity through policy, while simultaneously “narrativizing” the immigrant “Other” as criminal, subversive, and disloyal. To demonstrate the historical and rhetorical significance of exclusionary nationalism, we interrogate the language of policymaking during congressional debates following the Great Depression, the Mexican repatriation drive, and the Japanese internment during World War II. Our analysis traces the rhetorical similarities of how policymakers used exclusionary nationalism to stop increased immigration from China in the 1800s and Mexico in the early 1900s through border enforcement. Then, we look at how the same rhetorical strategies were used during World War II to create internal enforcement policies aimed at controlling Japanese residents already in the country. By chronicling the rhetorical continuity of exclusionary nationalism during these historical moments, we reveal how assimilationism, racism, classism, and xenophobia consistently inform US policymaking over time. Finally, we continue this historical trajectory and create a space for future discussion by analyzing the contemporary political landscape. Our goal is to explore how exclusionary nationalism influences debates about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) and forces rhetorical compromises for supporters of the DREAM Act. This analysis serves as a political intervention in public rhetoric surrounding the DREAM Act, suggesting a new direction for advocacy in order to resist and redirect centuries of exclusionary nationalism’s rhetorical dominance in policymaking.

The Narrative Topoi of Exclusionary Nationalism Since the Naturalization Act of 1790, exclusion of the feared immigrant “Other” has been deeply entrenched in American legal history through assertions of inclusion and exclusion. We understand exclusionary nationalism as the narrative by which elite Anglo-Saxon ideals and assumptions constitute a restricted definition of what is “American.” This national identity is a rhetorical product of cultural elements serving as “discursive devices” by which difference or unity is constituted. Just as Alexander Hamilton argued, a unified national identity is necessary to uphold hierarchies of power through a cohesive narrative that “transcends the limitations of the individual body and will” and remains intact over time, though certainly the process has been rife with ruptures and challenges.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 159

8/5/15 2:04 PM

160

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

This unified national identity is achieved through rhetorical processes of articulation and deliberation, what Christian Kock, Lisa Villadsen, and others have identified as “rhetorical citizenship.” In this conceptualization, citizenship is a series of discursive acts constituting the nation through rhetorical assertions of belonging. Robert Asen has suggested that citizenship is a “mode of public engagement” characterized by “fluid, multimodal, and quotidian enactments of citizenship in a multiple public sphere.” In considering the rhetorical dimensions of citizenship, we see that the constitutive processes of nation building delineate publics through deliberation to create a cohesive narrative about citizenship, despite profound cultural differences in the United States. For Kock and Villadsen, public deliberation over inclusiveness and exclusivity serves as the foundation of racial debate as elected officials and lay publics evaluate the rhetorical processes that constitute nationalism across time. Such rhetorically constituted national identities become “transhistorical subjects” and establish a “collectivity” among people able to transcend any given historical moment. Policymakers have established a hegemonic national identity for the purpose of creating unity and maintaining their position of power via narratives that are both instrumental and constitutive. The rhetoric of exclusionary nationalism articulated by the “Founding Fathers” is remarkable for its ideological flexibility, as national leaders fashioned it in the face of new challenges and shifting demographics. Assimilationism Assimilationism is the rhetorical process by which minority groups suppress or discard facets of their cultural identity (including language, dress, etc.) through education, socioeconomic mobility, or naturalization, and absorb facets of the dominant culture. Since the eighteenth century, political leaders have expected immigrants to adopt Anglo-Saxon values in order to “become” American. The popular late eighteenth-century “melting pot” metaphor creates an image of diverse cultural ingredients effortlessly blending together to form a unified nation. However, in this “melting pot,” US policymakers have worked to prevent “undesirable” ethnic groups from assimilating. Those historically privileged for assimilation possessed the cultural markers of a “desirable American”—”white in race, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in speech and surname, and Protestant in religion”—while those excluded did not conform to these norms. These patterns of exclusion

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 160

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

161

constituted the myth of Anglo-Saxonism as “American” and preserved the rhetorical prominence of exclusionary nationalism. Racism American assimilation is intrinsically linked to European heritage, making racism—the social construction and preservation of white privilege—a second rhetorical feature of exclusionary nationalism. Omi and Winant claim that “the state is inherently racial” and is “the pre-eminent site of racial conflict”; therefore, all narratives generated by the state are racially based. Narratives of exclusionary nationalism privilege the dominance of whites over nonwhite “Others.” Whiteness, then, is best defined as a narrative construct: “a function of what people believe, a mutable category tied to particular historical moments, a mechanism for excluding those of unfamiliar origin,” existing only as a superior antonym to nonwhiteness. White, Anglo-Saxon policymakers were the first to constitute the rhetorical power of whiteness through what Paul Gilroy calls “anachronistic, even a vestigial, production.” The definition of whiteness has shifted within immigration rhetoric as groups of immigrants have been (re)defined within the nation’s racial borders. For example, with the influx of non-Anglo European immigrants in the nineteenth century, the definition of “white” expanded, first to English-speaking western Europeans and then to all Caucasians who possessed cultural features more closely related to Anglo-Saxons than those of nonwhites (i.e., Native Americans, Africans, and Asians). In addition, coding the majority of Europeans as “whites” strengthened institutions built on white/nonwhite binaries, such as slavery and the Chinese coolie trade. By widening the gap between whites and nonwhites in the United States, the state privileged the whiteness of the exclusionary nationalism narrative. The shifting landscape of “whiteness” has had material consequences that have affected individuals’ ability to participate in public deliberation as a function of rhetorical citizenship. As Cheryl Harris asserts, the chief characteristic of whiteness is its relationship to property. Being a white citizen means “gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that materially and permanently guaranteed basic subsistence needs and therefore, survival.” Harris concludes that whiteness is a “valuable asset” and a “treasured property” protected by law. This connection between whiteness and property provides a material consequence of the rhetorical practices of citizenship that define by

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 161

8/5/15 2:04 PM

162

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

“race” or by performance the notion of “whiteness,” even as it changes over time. Xenophobia The establishment of the shifting white/nonwhite binary in the American narrative of exclusion perpetuates apprehension among whites toward potentially threatening nonwhite “Others.” Xenophobia is characterized by an irrational fear or hatred of racial “Others,” expressed through rhetoric that unites whites against nonwhite immigrant “Others.” Such rhetorical strategies “keep the [feared] object at a distance, differentiating oneself from it . . . protecting oneself from it .  .  . and destroying it through hatred” in order to maintain the collective power and unity of whites while ensuring the inferiority of the nonwhite immigrant “Other.” This process of “Othering” rhetorically constitutes the immigrant as a feared object that must be controlled in order to defend the existing racial hierarchy. In the United States, xenophobia was rampant among nativist groups during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, perpetuating the anglicized national narrative as socially, economically, and politically superior. Nonwhite immigrants were criminalized, marginalized through rhetorics of disease, and relegated to second- and third-class status. These narratives were popular among both nativists and policymakers, resulting in a string of xenophobic immigration policies. Such policies institutionalized the xenophobic narrative of exclusionary nationalism intrinsic to the dominant national narrative, and justified the consolidation of national resources by those included in the nation. Classism Class antagonism between white laborers and nonwhite immigrants also informs the narrative of exclusionary nationalism, as xenophobia is mobilized for economic protectionism. Classism, the fourth topos of exclusionary nationalism, is intertwined with the rhetoric of race and nation. The preservation of a hegemonic national narrative depends on the maintenance of white economic superiority over foreign laborers to preserve the privileged economic position of white laborers. Tomás Almaguer states, “Racialized hostility against [immigrant] laborers is best understood in light of the way class-based interests among European Americans were defined in relation to its immigrant population.” Beginning with Chinese immigration during the nineteenth century,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 162

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

163

white laborers believed that nonwhite foreign laborers threatened the underlying class entitlements that the narrative of exclusionary nationalism had secured for them. Thus immigrant laborers became targets of discursive attacks that suggested their racial and biological inferiority. For example, Chinese migration was described as a “yellow plague” that threatened the racial and economic power of white laborers. Policymakers implemented restrictive immigration policies to slow the migration of competing Chinese laborers. Classism, as a topos of exclusionary nationalism, was institutionalized via immigration policy and upheld the Anglo-Saxon position of economic power, while reinforcing the exclusion of nonwhites from capitalist opportunities. These four topoi of exclusionary nationalism have been institutionalized through the discourses surrounding immigration control. Foucault speaks of discourse as a phenomenon occurring within the established order of things; however, he argues that narrators give discourse its power. He writes that in all societies “the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with change events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality.” Foucault suggests that a major preoccupation of modern discourse is the creation of “rules of exclusion” concerning “what is prohibited.” We engage Foucault’s work on discourse because of his insistence that discourses produce “the ordering of objects” built upon premises of exclusion. As a practice, Foucault argues that discourses “determine the group of relations that discourse must establish in order to speak of this or that object, in order to deal with them, name them, analyse them, classify them, explain them, etc.” Foucault’s statements on discourse highlight their constitutive function in the production and maintenance of social hierarchies. Historically, US policymakers have produced and institutionalized the discursive and rhetorical work of exclusionary nationalism, creating the policies and laws that define, restrict, and manage immigration in the United States. While we certainly acknowledge other political arenas for immigration debate, like the US court system, we focus on congressional debates since these contain rich rhetorical deliberations about nationalism and citizenship that demonstrate how the topoi of exclusionary nationalism emerged over time. We suggest that the stories and arguments advanced within immigration testimony and law are the discourses that structure the classification and objectification of groups of people for inclusion and exclusion. Thus immigration law provides a text for understanding the ways in which policymakers craft definitions of national belonging through constitutive and exclusionary

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 163

8/5/15 2:04 PM

164

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

narratives. According to Eithne Luibhéid, “Immigration control is not just a powerful symbol of nationhood and people but also a means to literally construct the nation and people in particular ways.” Immigration control naturalizes the United States as a nation distinct from others, whose border defines both the geographical territory of the nation and the people who rhetorically inhabit the country. This rhetoric emerged strongly in policy formulations during the Great Depression and World War II, establishing the precedent of using immigration control to maintain exclusionary nationalism.

In Times of Economic Strife: Exclusionary Nationalism and the Control of Mexican Laborers Following the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Industrial Revolution ushered in a massive immigration of hopeful workers, many of whom were of Chinese descent, whose presence threatened Anglo-Saxon privilege and justified exclusionary nationalist narratives. Fear of economic competition and cultural differences ignited a national fear of the “Yellow Peril” among the white majority. Nearly one hundred years after the Industrial Revolution, during the peak of Chinese migration along the West Coast, President Garfield argued before the House Committee on Education and Labor that Chinese immigrants “[retained] their distinctive peculiarities and characteristics, refusing to assimilate themselves to our institutions,” and degraded the Chinese as a subhuman race of “sardines . . . [breeding] disease, pestilence, and death.” Garfield’s racially charged “sardine” metaphor drew upon the deeply entrenched xenophobia of Anglo-Saxon policymakers, justifying Chinese exclusion from American identity and citizenship. Such racist and xenophobic topoi of exclusionary nationalism prompted passage of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone Act, limiting Asian immigration and naturalization for decades. The tradition of addressing perceived threats to the white national narrative through restrictive immigration policies continued in the 1920s as the eugenics movement mushroomed. As Marouf Hasian and David Montejano have aptly documented, eugenicists sought to create a “science” to improve the human race through better breeding. Eugenicists argued for a white nationalism based on the “fundamental fact that all men are created bound by their protoplasmic makeup and unequal in their powers and responsibilities.” They used this racially derived pseudoscience to assert the superiority of Anglo-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 164

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

165

Saxons, describing them as having “the most active, ambitious and courageous blood . . . the crème de la crème” in comparison to the “weaker minds” of other races. Harry Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Record Office and a member of the Committee on Eugenic Legislation, outlined the racial hierarchies constituting the “American Race” at a congressional conference on immigration restriction in 1924. He argued, “If the American race is composed, first, of descendants of immigrants of the British Isles; then immigrants coming from Germany, Scandinavia, from the Netherlands, from France, then the Jewish group, then from Spain, then, possibly, Hungary, Russia, and the group from other countries, if that is the stuff out of which the American race is made, and if we maintain those proportions, I think we would make a great step in advance.” Laughlin’s narrative of the “American Race” was similar to the early twentieth-century assimilationists’ call for the Americanization of all immigrants, but it differed in that certain races were deemed forever inassimilable on the basis of their “genetic makeup.” This reliance on science as a mechanism for measuring the strength of the human race represented the rise of “scientific race-thinking,” a rhetorical movement in which scientific experts were funded by the government to provide an “objective” lens through which to view racial differences. The “objective” lens legitimized popular notions of white supremacy by scientifically proving the inferiority of nonwhites, greatly influencing twentieth-century notions of nationalism, citizenship, and American identity. As a result, policymakers in the 1920s deployed the racist and xenophobic topoi utilized by the “Founding Fathers” in eugenicist arguments to rationalize their privileged position in the making of the “American Race.” The fear of an “immigrant invasion” of non-Anglo-Saxons, along with the language of eugenics, served as the impetus for immigration quotas based on national origin and the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, followed by the National Origins Act of 1924. These acts limited the naturalization of “undesirable” peoples through a system of quotas, ensuring the dominance of the AngloSaxon national narrative. The exclusion of all nonwhite immigrant “Others” on the basis of national origin remained the primary mechanism of border enforcement for several decades. While enforcement policies addressing immigration externally were central to upholding Anglo-Saxon privilege, the onset of the Great Depression and World War II turned the political focus inward, shifting the attention of policymakers toward internal enforcement to control nonwhite “Others.” The Great Depression shifted the rhetorical construction of the Mexican border

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 165

8/5/15 2:04 PM

166

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

crosser from friendly neighbor to an enemy of the state owing to increased competition for jobs in the American Southwest. This ignited anti-immigrant sentiment among white workers who believed that Mexican immigrants were the cause of the economic downturn. Calling for citizenship policies to “purify the race,” white policymakers urged discipline and containment. In a 1930 report, the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, led by Representative Jed J. Johnson (D-OK), made the case for increasing control of Mexican laborers because of the “threat” these “peons” posed to the American worker. The committee argued that “unemployment statistics [in the Southwest] showed large numbers of Mexicans unemployed. Reliable reports showed great drawings on charity by Mexicans in these and other places. . . . Mexicans were offering their services at 20 cents an hour in border cities and were being employed in preference to American citizens, who were being forced to migrate northward, thus competing with other unemployment.  .  . . These hearings show conclusively the disastrous effects of the admission of serf, peon, and slave types.” Just as Chinese immigrants were targets of the racist and xenophobic topoi of exclusionary nationalism during the Industrial Revolution, perceived job competition following the Great Depression made Mexican laborers targets for a classist exclusionary reclassification. Policymakers justified the imposition of restrictions by reducing Mexican laborers to “serf, peon, and slave types” who relied on American charity and threatened American industry. As a result, Mexican immigrants who had been constructed as “white” participants in the national narrative—for example, in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo—were now constituted as national enemies through racist, xenophobic, and classist rhetoric. In the labor crisis of the 1930s in the American Southwest, this deployment of exclusionary rhetoric against Mexican immigrants already in the country inspired the largest strategy of internal immigration control yet seen in the United States: the Mexican repatriation drive. At the state and municipal levels, classist topoi legitimized by the Mexican repatriation drive forcibly justified the forced deportation of Mexican immigrants in an attempt to stave off economic competition. Although immigrants who had entered the United States illegally were the primary targets, legal permanent residents, legal temporary workers, and citizens who were believed to be Mexican were exiled in an extremely public and traumatic way, as David Gutierrez has detailed. Although racially coded as “white” at the time of the original annexation of Mexican territory in 1848, new citizens were still interpolated as “Mexican” well into the twentieth century, complicating their citi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 166

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

167

zenship narrative. By 1933, 62 percent of the four hundred thousand people deported to Mexico were native-born US citizens; total deportations reached nearly one million between 1929 and 1939. These massive deportations were a result of policymakers’ calls for immediate and comprehensive action by states and cities to address the so-called problem of the Mexican immigrant, for fear that “each year that passes without restriction [of Mexican immigrants] the task ultimately affecting restriction becomes more difficult, as agriculture, the railroads, and industry generally become more dependent on and saturated with [Mexican laborers].” Government enforcement tactics relieving an industry “saturated” with Mexican laborers included raids, mass deportations, inspections, and public arrests. The strategy of criminalizing the Mexican immigrant, however, achieved the greatest rhetorical prominence. Racist, xenophobic, and classist rhetoric pregnant with fear depicted the Mexican immigrant as inherently criminal. Policymakers blamed Mexican immigrants as the root of a perceived increase in crime in the American Southwest, and demanded their removal. The remarks of John R. Quinn of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors were typical. “In ridding ourselves of the criminally undesirable alien,” Quinn said, “we will put an end to a large part of our crime and law enforcement problem, probably saving many good American lives and certainly millions of dollars for law enforcement against people who have no business being in this country.” Constructing Mexican laborers as “criminally undesirable aliens,” Quinn’s remarks exemplify racist, xenophobic, and classist topoi that isolate a population out of fear that it will jeopardize the viability of the Anglo-Saxon national narrative. This view rendered the Mexican immigrant inherently disobedient and dangerous, a reflection of white anxieties about race and labor. The growing racist, xenophobic, and classist belief that immigrants created an unsafe nation were exacerbated by public hysteria over Mexican birthrates. In response to a 1929 California report claiming that children of Mexican descent amounted to one-sixth of the total state population, the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization stated, “It must be clear that the continuation of such a birthrate (or even considerably less) in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Colorado, will in a comparatively short time change the complexion of the population of those States, and bring about a hyphenized, politically unstablized, Latinized majority throughout the Southwest.” Although the children of Mexican immigrants acquired citizenship through birth, they remained a perceived threat to the Anglo-Saxon narrative. Policymakers painted a picture of an unstable and undesirable “Latinized” future in

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 167

8/5/15 2:04 PM

168

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

the American Southwest, legitimizing the forced removal of Mexican laborers and their families from the United States and reifying the narrative of exclusionary nationalism. Borrowing from the eugenics debate, this language turned birth and reproduction into topoi of fear and distrust for white Americans. By making rhetorical connections between “Mexicans” and an “unstablized” society, policymakers institutionalized xenophobia in order to criminalize Mexican immigrants and citizens of Mexican descent, regardless of their naturalization. Lisa Flores argues that the “catch-all term ‘criminal’ allows the criminal nature of Mexicans to be tapped whenever rhetorically needed, constituting Mexicans as potentially significant threats.” Fear-filled rhetoric became a powerful disciplinary technique that “[reduced] the [Mexican] body to a ‘political force,’” forever defining it as deviant from the national narrative. As Michelle Holling has documented, poll taxes and other disciplinary and punitive measures made sure that Mexican Americans were denied participation not only in the narrative of their citizenship but also in the mechanics of citizenship itself, as their communities were devastated by repatriation. The Mexican repatriation drive thus institutionalized narratives of fear rooted in racism, xenophobia, and classism, while constituting the “problem” of immigration as a Mexican problem and excluding these “conquered natives” from the national narrative of citizenship.

War: Exclusionary Nationalism and National Security in the Disciplining of Japanese Residents Just as Chinese and Mexican laborers were the victims of assimilationist, racist, xenophobic, and classist topoi in the first half of the twentieth century, the 1940s introduced a new population for policymakers to forcibly exclude from the national narrative. Immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, policymakers ignited the fears of the white American public by constructing Japanese residents, regardless of their naturalization status, as a latent national security threat. This new wave of the “Yellow Peril” constructed Japanese residents as targets of internal enforcement. Whereas the first wave of the Yellow Peril accompanied the massive immigration of Chinese migrant workers to the West Coast during the Industrial Revolution, the onset of World War II revived anti-Asian rhetoric to capitalize on the same exclusionary topoi.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 168

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

169

The attack on Pearl Harbor created a surge of racist, classist, and xenophobic sentiment in the public deliberations of policymakers. National security officials urged the Roosevelt administration to safeguard the “welfare and security” of the nation from the potential “sabotage” of all nonwhite communist “Others,” and Japanese immigrants and citizens became the scapegoats. Policymakers rhetorically constructed widespread fear by alluding to a potential government takeover by Japanese residents. The suspected disloyalty of Japanese residents justified Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which mandated the forced evacuation and internment of more than 120,000 Japanese residents, two-thirds of whom were citizens, into military camps across the United States for the duration of the war. The xenophobic racial targeting of Japanese residents mirrored the strategy of criminalization previously used against Mexican laborers. Both strategies used exclusion to buttress nationalism, and both had material consequences, in that the federal government repossessed the land and property of those deported or interned. In Executive Order 9066, Roosevelt explained the necessity of Japanese internment: “Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense . . . I hereby authorize . . . [that] the appropriate Military Commander may determine [the military areas] from which any or all persons may be excluded, and . . . the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave.” The order was implemented under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Still in effect today, this act allows military leaders to restrict the freedom of “alien enemies” upon the declaration of war or actual, attempted, or threatened invasion by a foreign nation. Thus, with the legal sanctions of the Alien Enemies Act and Executive Order 9066, Roosevelt gave the US military complete control over the allocation and management of all military areas, approving the removal of Japanese residents from West Coast communities for the purpose of “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” This order constituted Japanese residents as potential traitors and jeopardized their citizenship. Furthermore, the Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration validated the internment of all Japanese residents, including citizens, stating, “Loyalty is a characteristic that cannot be measured with a yardstick, and between the obviously loyal and obviously disloyal will fall many cases lacking positive evidence one way or the other.” Such uncertainty surrounding national loyalty allowed policymakers to capitalize on racially rooted feelings of suspicion and xenophobia against all Japanese “Others,”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 169

8/5/15 2:04 PM

170

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

regardless of citizenry. As a result, Congress faced little opposition in calling for the elimination of “all elements dangerous to the security and well-being of the Nation,” even though innocent people would inevitably be marked with the “badge of the traitor.” Thus official discourses coupled racial stigma with fear to reclassify Japanese Americans as outside of the formal boundaries of citizenship. The internment of Japanese residents was legitimized in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Using the previous decision in Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, which challenged curfews imposed on persons of Japanese descent following Pearl Harbor, the Supreme Court ruled, “We cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained.” Both cases upheld the constitutionality of limiting the rights of Japanese residents for the purposes of national security, and permitted physical containment of these residents, demonstrating the material consequences of rhetorical discourses. The loyalty rhetoric used to justify Executive Order 9066 upheld the dominance of the racial, xenophobic, and classist topoi of exclusionary nationalism as a rhetorical doctrine overriding citizenship in the case of the Japanese. This transcendence of citizenship links this rhetoric to that following the Great Depression and preceding Mexican repatriation. Residents and citizens of German and Italian heritage were not subject to internment because the physical racial features that had been used in exclusionary rhetoric only marked non-Western citizens and residents. Policymakers targeted only those Germans and Italians suspected of having connections to the war, arresting and trying the offenders individually. By contrast, Japanese residents were disciplined as a racial mass whether or not they had been involved in suspicious activities, just as the state had targeted all persons of Mexican heritage for deportation in the 1930s. California attorney general Earl Warren explained this difference: “We believe that when we are dealing with the Caucasian race we have methods that will test the loyalty of them. . . . But when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field and cannot form any opinion that we believe to be sound.” Warren’s remarks represented policymakers’ racial constructions of Germans and Italians as white, sanctioning the lack of discipline imposed on these groups as compared to the imprisonment of Japanese nonwhite “Others.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 170

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

171

By rhetorically linking national loyalty and race, policymakers supported racial exclusion from the national narrative. The internment of thousands of Japanese residents during World War II exemplified the racist, xenophobic, and classist topoi of exclusionary nationalism, continuing the xenophobic narratives of the Yellow Peril as rhetorical strategies in national security policy.

In Times of Uncertainty: Exclusionary Nationalism, Communism, and Loyalty The political emphasis on the relationship between national loyalty and assimilation remained a rhetorical heuristic as the onset of the Cold War reignited fear of the political “Other.” Previous xenophobic rhetoric constituting Mexican and Japanese residents as enemies reinforced the discursive strategy of “Othering” the populations considered threatening to the Anglicized national narrative, including those deemed ideological enemies of the state. Rhetorically objectifying the political “Other” allowed American anticommunists to construct rhetorical enemies out of anyone whose ideology could be considered menacing to Anglo-Saxon values. In an effort to eradicate communism, understood as a set of ideological practices rooted in nonwhite, non-English-speaking, non-Western locales, Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV) began an extensive review of immigration policies to ensure that they continued to exclude “aliens who would seek to overthrow [the] present government by force or violence.” Anticommunist rhetoric appeared to be rooted in governmental ideology; it was laden with all four topoi of exclusionary nationalism. McCarran’s lengthy investigation eventually yielded the passage of the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Senator McCarran capitalized on the fear of communist subversives popularized by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) to frame immigration as a national security issue. His 1952 act codified a quota system based on national origins and included a series of selective immigration policies. Advocates claimed that the bill would “weed out subversives and other undesirables,” and protect the democratic nation against a communist takeover. Framing immigration as a national security threat, McCarran argued that immigrants were a “stream of humanity [flowing] into the fabric of our society,” which, if “polluted” by communist ideals, would have the potential to “infect” American institutions and way of life. Mirroring turn-of-the-century rhetoric of the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 171

8/5/15 2:04 PM

172

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

Yellow Peril and eugenics, McCarran’s use of bodily metaphors likened communist immigrants to diseases that, if left untreated, would contaminate the cultural homogeneity of American identity. Furthermore, likening communists to an uncontrollable infection suggested a national takeover that would permanently threaten the power of Anglo-Saxon policymakers. McCarran’s subcommittee sought to ward off the impending communist “infection” by strengthening the system of quotas based on national origin. Because the concept of racial hierarchies by the early 1950s was considered a faux pas, the subcommittee members, when testifying before Congress, were careful not to mention that the original 1924 quota system was rooted in notions of Nordic supremacy. They referred to the “objectivity” of the quotas, claiming that the national-origins system “provided a fixed and easily determinable method for controlling immigration which is not subject to the whims and caprice of administrative interpretation.” Although McCarran avoided any explicitly racialized arguments in the act, his intentions were revealed when he was asked whether unused quotas should be reallocated to countries with immigration needs greater than their quotas allowed, such as China and Mexico. “If we scrap the national origins formula,” McCarran responded, “we will, in the course of a generation or so, change the ethnic and cultural composition of this Nation.” By refusing to expand the original system to allow for greater immigration from “undesirable” countries, McCarran reproduced assimilationist, racist, xenophobic, and classist topoi, and ensured that the narrative dominance of exclusionary nationalism would further institutionalize an impenetrable Anglo-Saxon privilege. Policymakers from the 1930s to the 1950s legitimized racially exclusive immigration policies by “Othering” undesirable immigrants as rhetorical enemies of the state, justifying discipline with references to protecting the American national narrative. Juxtaposing the obedient white democratic American and the disobedient nonwhite immigrant “Other” validated immigration control as the primary mechanism by which to promote the assimilationist, racist, classist, and xenophobic topoi of exclusionary nationalism. This pattern of exclusivity continues today, as policymakers debate immigration reform. Legal scholar Phyllis Pease Chock explains that congressional hearings are sites of “cultural reproduction, as canonical versions of national myths and hegemonic ideology encompass the speakers’ disparate renderings of events.” In the case of immigration policies such as the DREAM Act, the national myth perpetuated in the congressional hearing room is exclusionary nationalism.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 172

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

173

Resisting and Reinforcing Exclusionary Nationalism in Contemporary Policymaking The legacy of exclusionary nationalism continues to inform contemporary debates on immigration reform, creating constitutive paradoxes for activists who resist restrictive policies. In the case of the DREAM Act, a policy that aims to increase educational and economic legal access for qualifying immigrants, activists create public rhetorical spaces within congressional hearing rooms to deliberate on their own rhetorical position within American identity and citizenship, unlike the silenced Chinese and Mexican immigrants in the decades before them. However, despite this access to public debate on the rhetorical concept of citizenship and despite the opportunity to revise the American identity to include multiracial and multinational characteristics, DREAM Act activists adopt the dominant markers of an exclusionary nationalistic American identity, employing an ineffective constitutive rhetoric that ensures the continued marginalization of these immigrants from the national narrative. The 2007 hearing in the House of Representatives on undocumented students was arguably the moment in the DREAM Act’s twelve-year history that mobilized a mass rhetorical movement. This hearing provided a brief yet significant public space in which immigrant counternarratives might have challenged exclusionary nationalism. However, DREAM Act supporters failed to produce political subjectivities that challenged their exclusion from the national narrative, or they politicized what Foucault has called “subjugated knowledges.” Foucault acknowledges that subjugated knowledges are bodies of information and experience that (1) “have been buried and disguised in a functionalist coherence or formal systemization,” and (2) “have been disqualified as inadequate to their task or insufficiently elaborated: naive knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy, beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity.” Foucault suggests that “it is through the re-appearance of this knowledge, of these local popular knowledges, these disqualified knowledges, that criticism performs its work.” Thus, to understand how discourses shift over time, critics must discern the ways in which official and subjugated narratives strategize and clash through topoi of inclusion and exclusion. This is particularly true in the case of the DREAM Act debates. During the 2007 debates, rather than challenge the myth-making process by which the identity of a “national threat” is forced upon them, DREAM Act supporters, albeit unintentionally, reiterated topoi of exclusionary nationalism

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 173

8/5/15 2:04 PM

174

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

and reified their marginalization. The undocumented students testifying before the House used assimilationist and classist rhetoric in an attempt to connect with policymakers. Statements such as “I will always consider the United States of America my home. . . . I love this country,” “The truth is I consider myself, culturally, an American as I have been American-raised and educated for the past 18 years,” and “Every Fourth of July I cannot wait for the day that I am a citizen and can proudly say that I am” frame the student panelists within the Anglo-Saxon American identity. Instead of redefining the American identity in a way that would include subjugated “Others” like themselves, and considering heterogeneity a strength rather than a threat to national sovereignty, they perpetuate the assumptions that facilitate the continued social and economic marginalization of those immigrants furthest from the Anglo-Saxon status quo. We contend here that, unless undocumented immigrant advocates create counternarratives that challenge exclusionary nationalist assumptions of citizenry, comprehensive policy reform benefiting marginalized immigrants is likely to remain a distant possibility. This constitutive paradox is further complicated by policymakers who argue in favor of the DREAM Act by perpetuating the exclusivity of the American identity. Like undocumented student activists, policymakers propagate assimilationist and classist topoi of exclusionary nationalism rather than expanding the definition of citizenship to include historically marginalized immigrants. They not only perpetuate the myth of a single American identity, but they interrogate undocumented students in a way that forces them to reify their own subjugation to the state. For example, in the 2007 hearing, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said of undocumented students in her opening remarks, “These kids yearn to learn English, if it is not their first language already, so they can be full participants in our society. . . . These children are as American as apple pie.” During the hearing, Lee interrogated the undocumented students who testified. “I have been to your ceremonies,” she said. “They are emotional. The tears come to your eyes. Are you teary about patriotism and loyalty? You feel it in your heart?” Upon hearing the students affirm their patriotism and loyalty, Lee asked, “Do you think in your generation anyone is against being Americanized and learning English?” In response, each student affirmed his or her desire to be “Americanized.” Lee’s use of “kids” and “children” alongside patriotic metaphors like “apple pie” and “teary” patriotism frames undocumented students as naïve and childlike “ultimate Americans,” willing to serve the state blindly, rather than as self-aware, mature subjugated objects of the state who

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 174

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

175

are willing to demand a shift in power to liberate themselves from marginalization. Furthermore, asking them to reinforce their desire to be “Americanized” compels undocumented students to abandon their original heritage, languages, and patriotic values in order to gain credibility among policymakers. By infantilizing and delegitimizing the narratives of undocumented youth, DREAM Act advocates potentially reinforce their participation in the paternal state as they attempt to establish their citizenship. Many policymakers argue in favor of the DREAM Act by framing it as a policy that will complete the process of assimilation for already “Americanized” undocumented youth. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) stated, We want to provide incentives for people to acquire American values and culture. And the pathway to assimilation for most immigrants is through their children. They are the ones who first learn English. They are the ones who learn American history and culture from school and their friends. It is our history and culture that they think of as theirs. And they are the ones who help their parents navigate bureaucracies, health care, and jobs. In other words, these children are . . . Americanized. Using a transactional model of citizenship, Conyers suggests that policymakers should incentivize citizenship by assimilation through language skills, public education, and bureaucratic training, positing assimilation as a measure of citizenship. Just as Alexander Hamilton called for immigrants “to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government,” Conyers advocates the assimilation of undocumented youth, constituting the DREAM Act as the legal strategy to achieve full Americanization. Instead of challenging hegemonic assumptions about the Anglicized national ideal, this strategy perpetuates exclusionary nationalism. By failing to create counternarratives, DREAM Act advocates risk pushing marginalized immigrants even further away from citizenship. Using assimilationist topoi to reframe marginalized immigrants as Americans rather than as threats creates a fraught terrain for supporters of the DREAM Act. Although the familiar theme of assimilation closes the gaps that privilege “Americans” over immigrant “Others,” it also reifies the subordination of immigrants by preserving exclusionary nationalism. Additionally, it establishes a cultural norm that is blind to difference, and disadvantages all “Others.” Social theorist Iris Marion Young explains, “The real differences between oppressed groups and the dominant norm . . . tend to put them at a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 175

8/5/15 2:04 PM

176

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

disadvantage in measuring up to these standards, and for that reason assimilationist policies perpetuate their disadvantage.” Under these circumstances, it is imperative that marginalized immigrants politicize their subjugated knowledge and assert the positivity of their difference, even in the face of the perceived expediency of assimilationism. Only by rhetorically challenging Anglo-Saxon notions of nation, embracing difference and diversity as topoi of a new American identity, and redefining themselves beyond exclusionary nationalist rhetoric will undocumented youth and their allies challenge the state’s control over the American identity. Until they obtain the protections afforded by legal status, however, they have few options beyond assimilationist rhetoric to fight for incremental change. If undocumented immigrant youths are legalized by the DREAM Act, they might consider trading their current assimilationist strategies for a more radical rhetoric of resistance. To defy the exclusion of all nonwhite “Others” from the national narrative, they might embrace their difference and politicize their subjugated knowledge, highlighting their values, traditions, languages, and beliefs. By insisting that whole groups who differ from the norm are deserving of national membership, we suggest, they will encourage group solidarity, challenging the hierarchy of exclusion that privileges an Anglo-Saxon American identity over their own. The act of reclaiming a marginalized identity challenges hegemonic assumptions about assimilation. Politicizing difference drives a “relativizing” of the norm, forcing the dominant culture to admit to its specificity, debunking the myth that the norm is neutral and universal. Over time, such strategies may widen the narrowing definition of “American” and create increased access to citizenship through policy. Thus marginalized immigrants must constitute a significant public beyond state-controlled spaces in order to defy the longstanding narrative dominance of exclusionary nationalism. note s 1. Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 21. 2. Many terms have been used to describe the American white majority culture: “Anglo,” “Anglo-Saxon,” “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP),” “Anglo-American.” In this chapter, we favor the term “Anglo-Saxon,” as it refers to the cultural heritage (British Germanic tribes), language (English), and race (white) of the majority population, ultimately excluding all minority peoples from its definition. 3. Edwin Poppe and Louk Hagendoorn, “National Identification of Russians in Five Former Soviet Republics,” in Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants: Cross-National Com-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 176

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

177

parisons, ed. Mérove Gijsberts, Louk Hagendoorn, and Peer Scheepers (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004), 72. 4. Thus we conceptualize immigration as a rhetorical system of exclusions crafted through policy language over time. 5. Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s (New York: Routledge, 1986), 75. 6. Patricia Hill Collins describes “Othering” as the process by which “one element is objectified as the ‘Other,’ and is viewed as an object to be manipulated and controlled.” Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2000), 70. 7. Alexander Hamilton, “Examination Number VII,” in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton: July 1800–April 1802, vol. 25, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 496–97. 8. Eithne Luibhéid, Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 134. 9. Exclusionary nationalism occurs in multicultural societies where one ethnic group dominates nation-state building. 10. Stuart Hall, “The Question of Cultural Identity,” in Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies, ed. Stuart Hall et al. (Malden, MA: Open University Press, 1996), 617. 11. Maurice Charland, “Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Québécois,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, no. 2 (May 1987): 139. 12. Christian Kock and Lisa Villadsen, eds., Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012). 13. Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (May 2004): 191. 14. Charland, “Constitutive Rhetoric,” 140. 15. Desmond King, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 19. 16. Eric Kaufman, “American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Anglo-Saxon Ethnogenesis in the ‘Universal’ Nation, 1776–1850,” Journal of American Studies 33, no. 3 (December 1999): 449. 17. Omi and Winant, Racial Formation, 76 (emphasis in original). 18. Racial scholar Juan F. Perea suggests that race in the United States is framed through the black/white binary racial paradigm. We suggest that immigrants are categorized in one of two racial groups: white or nonwhite. Perea, “The Black/White Binary Paradigm of Race,” in Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2nd ed., ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), 344–53. 19. Ian F. López Haney, “White by Law,” in Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 630–31. 20. Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37. 21. Omi and Winant, Racial Formation, 65–66. 22. Cheryl I. Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993): 1713. 23. Michel Foucault, Power, vol. 3, ed. James D. Faubion, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: New Press, 2000), 11. 24. See John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955). 25. These included the Chinese Page Law of 1875, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Immigration Act of 1891, the Immigration Act of 1917, and the National Origins Act of 1924.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 177

8/5/15 2:04 PM

178

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

26. Tomás Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 154. 27. Erika Lee, “The ‘Yellow Peril’ and Asian Exclusion in the Americas,” Pacific Historical Review 76, no. 4 (October 2007): 547. 28. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the 1885 head tax on Chinese entering through Canada were the first formal policies to address the West Coast labor crises. 29. Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon, 1972), 215–37. 30. Ibid., 216. 31. Ibid. (emphasis in original). 32. Ibid., 49. 33. Ibid., 46. 34. And just as the state names and classifies groups of people for inclusion in and exclusion from the state, so too do groups name themselves to conform to or challenge the official discourses of exclusionary nationalism operating in a given historical moment. 35. Luibhéid, Entry Denied, xviii (emphasis in original). 36. Anti-Chinese sentiment had peaked by the end of the 1800s, as Chinese immigration to the West Coast increased from forty thousand in 1860 to more than a hundred thousand in 1880. See Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers, Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration, 4th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 74. 37. President Garfield’s testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor, in Report on Chinese Immigration, 47th Cong., 1st sess., 1882, H. Rep. 1017 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office), 1. 38. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the country’s first legislation restricting an entire population on the basis of race and national origin. See US Congress, Senate, Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, 47th Cong., 1st sess., S. 71 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1882). The Asiatic Barred Zone Act continued the exclusion of Asian immigrants by barring “persons who are natives of islands not possessed by the United States adjacent to the Continent of Asia.” See House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Report on Regulation of Immigration, H.R. 10384, 64th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. 1266 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), 1. 39. Marouf A. Hasian Jr., The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996); David Montejano, Anglos and the Making of Texas, 1836–1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987). 40. Charles Benedict Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (New York: Henry Holt, 1911), iv (emphasis in original). 41. Ibid., 211. “Weaker” races included southeastern Europeans, Asians, and both voluntary and involuntary African immigrants. 42. Quoted in King, Making Americans, 135. 43. Higham, Strangers in the Land, 273. 44. King, Making Americans, 130. 45. Dinnerstein and Reimers, Ethnic Americans, 86. More than eight hundred thousand immigrants traveled to the United States in 1921, spurring the vision of an immigrant invasion among opponents of immigration. 46. See the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Restriction of Immigration, April 7, 1932: Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 72nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rep. 1016 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), 6. 47. Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 187. 48. US House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration from Countries of the Western Hemisphere, 71st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. 898, pt. 1 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1930), 4.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 178

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

179

49. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stipulated that all inhabitants who did not announce their intention to remain Mexican citizens or leave the territory within one year would become citizens of the United States. At that time, naturalization was reserved for free white men; therefore, Mexicans were at once racialized as white. See Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 50–51. 50. David Gutierrez, Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). 51. Ibid., 7–8. 52. Francisco E. Balderrama and Raymond Rodríguez, Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006), 195. 53. House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration from Countries of the Western Hemisphere, 4. 54. Quinn quoted in “Illegal-Alien Bar Sought,” Los Angeles Times, January 13, 1931. 55. House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration from Countries of the Western Hemisphere, 4. 56. Lisa A. Flores, “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 20, no. 4 (December 2003): 377. 57. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Random House, 1977), 221. 58. Michelle Holling, “A Dispensational Rhetoric in ‘The Mexican Question in the Southwest,’” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Border, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 72. 59. Mae M. Ngai, “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924,” Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (June 1990): 91. 60. US House Pacific Coast Delegation Regarding Alien Enemies and Sabotage to President Roosevelt, in Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. 2124 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1942), 3. 61. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 175. 62. Executive Order No. 9066, Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, February 19, 1942), 1. 63. US Congress, An Act Respecting Alien Enemies, 5th Cong., 2nd sess., 1798, chap. 66 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1798), 570. 64. House Pacific Coast Delegation, Fourth Interim Report, 29. 65. Ibid., 30. 66. Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944), 218. 67. Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 US 81 (1943). 68. Quoted in Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 176. 69. US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States: Report of the Committee of the Judiciary Pursuant to S. Res. 137, 80th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rep. 1515 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950), 789. 70. US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Revision of Immigration and Nationality Laws, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rep. 1137 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952), 3. 71. Quoted in Robert A. Divine, American Immigration Policy, 1924–1952 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 179. 72. Senate Judiciary Committee, Immigration and Naturalization Systems, 448. 73. Quoted in Divine, American Immigration Policy, 180. 74. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 remained in place until the passage of the HartCeller Act of 1965.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 179

8/5/15 2:04 PM

180

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

75. Phyllis Pease Chock, “‘Illegal Aliens’ and ‘Opportunity’: Myth-Making in Congressional Testimony,” American Ethnologist 18, no. 2 (May 1991): 280. 76. The DREAM Act provides individual states with the ability to determine their own residency requirements for in-state tuition purposes and addresses the legal status of undocumented persons brought to the United Status under the age of sixteen, establishing provisions for such persons to obtain accelerated LPR status upon graduation from high school and completion of two years of college or military service. See Andorra Bruno, “Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and ‘DREAM Act’ Legislation,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, May 27, 2009, http://www.crs.gov, accessed November 11, 2010. 77. Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon, 1980), 81–82. A more complete and newly translated version of these two lectures can now be found in “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76, ed. Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana, trans. David Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), 1–41. Related comments on power can be found in the section titled “Method” in Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1980), 92–102. 78. Foucault, Power/Knowledge, 82. 79. Maria Nazareth Gonzalez and Tam Tran, testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of Undocumented Students,” Hearing Before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2007 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007), 11–14, 25. 80. Remarks of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, ibid., 7. 81. Ibid., 25. 82. Remarks of Rep. John Conyers, ibid., 5 (emphasis in original). 83. Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 164. 84. Ibid., 166.

bibl io gr a ph y Almaguer, Tomás. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Asen, Robert. “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (May 2004): 189–211. Balderrama, Francisco E., and Raymond Rodríguez. Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006. Bruno, Andorra. “Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and ‘DREAM Act’ Legislation.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, May 27, 2009. http://www.crs.gov. Accessed November 11, 2010. Charland, Maurice. “Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Québécois.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, no. 2 (May 1987): 133–50. Chock, Phyllis Pease. “‘Illegal Aliens’ and ‘Opportunity’: Myth-Making in Congressional Testimony.” American Ethnologist 18, no. 2 (May 1991): 279–94. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2000. Connor, Walker. Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Davenport, Charles Benedict. Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. New York: Henry Holt, 1911.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 180

8/5/15 2:04 PM

constituting enemies through fear

|

181

Dinnerstein, Leonard, and David M. Reimers. Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Divine, Robert A. American Immigration Policy, 1924–1952. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. Flores, Lisa A. “Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 20, no. 4 (December 2003): 362–87. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon, 1972. ———. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House, 1977. ———. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1, An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1980. ———. Power. Vol. 3. Edited by James D. Faubion. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: New Press, 2000. ———. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980. ———. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76. Edited by Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana. Translated by David Macey. New York: Picador, 2003. Gilroy, Paul. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Gonzalez, Maria Nazareth, and Tam Tran. Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of Undocumented Students.” In Hearing Before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2007, 11–14, 25. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007. Gutierrez, David. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Hall, Stuart. “The Question of Cultural Identity.” In Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies, ed. Stuart Hall, David Held, Don Hubert, and Kenneth Thompson, 595–634. Malden, MA: Open University Press, 1996. Hamilton, Alexander. “Examination Number VII.” In The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 25, July 1800–April 1802, ed. Harold C. Syrett, 495–97. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. Haney-López, Ian F. “White by Law.” In Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2nd ed., ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, 626–34. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. Harris, Cheryl I. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993): 1709–91. Hasian, Marouf A., Jr. The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996. Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955. Holling, Michelle. “A Dispensational Rhetoric in ‘The Mexican Question in the Southwest.’ ” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Border, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 65–85. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Kaufman, Eric. “American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Anglo-Saxon Ethnogenesis in the ‘Universal’ Nation, 1776–1850.” Journal of American Studies 33, no 3 (December 1999): 437–57. King, Desmond. Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 181

8/5/15 2:04 PM

182

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

Kock, Christian, and Lisa S. Villadsen, eds. Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012. Lee, Erika. “The ‘Yellow Peril’ and Asian Exclusion in the Americas.” Pacific Historical Review 76, no. 4 (October 2007): 537–62. Los Angeles Times. “Illegal-Alien Bar Sought.” January 13, 1931. Luibhéid, Eithne. Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Montejano, David. Anglos and the Making of Texas, 1836–1986. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987. Ngai, Mae M. “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924.” Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (June 1990): 67–92. ———. Impossible Subjects. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge, 1986. Perea, Juan F. “The Black/White Binary Paradigm of Race.” In Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2nd ed., ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, 344–53. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. Poppe, Edwin, and Louk Hagendoorn. “National Identification of Russians in Five Former Soviet Republics.” In Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants: Cross-National Comparisons, ed. Mérove Gijsberts, Louk Hagendoorn, and Peer Scheepers, 71–96. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004. US Congress. An Act Respecting Alien Enemies. 5th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1798. US Congress, House. Committee on Education and Labor. Report on Chinese Immigration, April 12, 1882: Report to Accompany H.R. 3540. 47th Cong., 1st sess. H. Rep. 1017, 1–2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1882. ———. Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Immigration from Countries of the Western Hemisphere. 71st Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rep. 898, pt. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1930. ———. Pacific Coast Delegation Regarding Alien Enemies and Sabotage. Letter to the president, in Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, House of Representatives. 77th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. 2124. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1942. ———. Report on Regulation of Immigration. H.R. 10384, 64th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. 1266. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917. ———. Restriction of Immigration, April 7, 1932: Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. 72nd Cong., 1st sess. H. Rep. 1016. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932. US Congress, Senate. Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. 47th Cong., 1st sess. S. 71. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1882. ———. Committee on the Judiciary. The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States: Report of the Committee of the Judiciary Pursuant to S. Res. 137. 80th Cong., 1st sess. S. Rep. 1515. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950. ———. Revision of Immigration and Nationality Laws. 82nd Cong., 2nd sess. S. Rep. 1137. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952. Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 182

8/5/15 2:04 PM

8

defining the right sort of immigrant Theodore Roosevelt and American Character Jay P. Childers

Theodore Roosevelt had a lasting effect on attitudes about and policy toward immigration in the early twentieth century. Beginning just months after the assassination of William McKinley at the hands of a second-generation Polish American and self-proclaimed anarchist, Roosevelt pushed for and eventually signed legislation—the Immigration Act of 1903—that for the first time since the short-lived Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 refused immigrants entry into the United States because of their political ideas. After asking for it in three consecutive messages to Congress, Roosevelt signed revised naturalization laws in 1906, which included a requirement that all new citizens be able to speak some English—a law that remained in place until 1990. Roosevelt created the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907 with Japan, which helped control Japanese immigration to the United States without instituting the nationality quota system that he adamantly opposed. Finally, Roosevelt advocated for education tests of all immigrants, which were eventually codified into law with the Immigration Act of 1917. Despite the clear impact he had on immigration in the United States, rhetorical scholars have paid little attention to Roosevelt’s discourse on the matter. Those who have given Roosevelt critical attention have focused primarily on his “Man with the Muck-Rake” speech, or his role in transforming the executive office into the rhetorical presidency. Only Leroy Dorsey has given Roosevelt’s rhetoric on immigration substantive consideration. Indeed, Dorsey has argued that one of Roosevelt’s most common topics of reform was Americanism, which Roosevelt “promoted . . . as the means to transform disparate groups of immigrants, nonwhites, and disgruntled nativists into ‘true’ Americans.” Moreover, Roosevelt’s belief in Americanism led him to situate the immigrant “as the archetypal hero of American history” in order to provide “his contemporaries with the means to embrace immigration more willingly,”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 183

8/5/15 2:04 PM

184

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

and also to “help citizens and immigrants alike with the means to accept assimilation as the nation’s destiny and its hope for greatness.” Focusing exclusively on Roosevelt’s Winning of the West, Dorsey and Rachel Harlow argue that Roosevelt “lionized the immigrant” in his mythic account. Others, especially those who have focused upon Roosevelt’s years as president, have viewed Roosevelt’s approach to immigration far more negatively. For instance, historian Rogers M. Smith has argued that, compared to other ideas of the time period, “the civic visions that . . . prevailed for over half a century, advanced by centrist progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and the political writer he most praised, Herbert Croly, were far less inclusive.” According to Smith, Roosevelt, Croly, and others agreed, among other things, “on the importance of cultural homogeneity [and] the dangers of immigration.” Thomas Dyer offers a likewise negative portrayal of Roosevelt’s views on immigration, suggesting that the president sought tighter immigration restrictions, excluded all nonwhites, and demanded complete assimilation of white immigrants. Two opposing views exist: Roosevelt the lionizer of immigrants and Roosevelt the strict nativist. Who is correct? Perhaps both. In the introduction to Who Belongs in America? Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration, Vanessa Beasley argues that there have long been two competing images of the immigrant in the American imagination, “one in which the immigrant is a symbol of hope and one in which the immigrant is a source of fear.” As a historical matter, there are many Americans who would proudly proclaim their country a nation of immigrants. As a practical matter of the here and now, many of these same people openly worry over what new immigrants might do to the national economy and American culture. The American people can be a contradictory lot. Such was the case during Roosevelt’s presidency. On the one hand, there was widespread need for immigrants to help fuel the nation’s expanding economy with cheap labor; the idea of the land of immigrants was already helping to serve the nation’s image on the international stage. It was in 1903 that a bronze plaque was affixed to the Statue of Liberty bearing Emma Lazarus’s 1883 poem “The New Colossus,” which includes the famous lines, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” On the other hand, there was also a great deal of fear that all the new immigrants entering the country would steal jobs from Americans, and upset the nation’s political stability with the anarchist and socialist ideas they were importing from places like Italy, Poland, and Russia. As the American people faced

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 184

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

185

growing waves of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century, there was hope and fear aplenty. In the face of such contradictory views, Roosevelt opted to neither offer unmitigated praise of immigrants nor take a nativist stance. Instead, Roosevelt’s rhetoric reveals his struggle to carefully distinguish “immigration of the right kind” from that “of the wrong kind,” as he put it in his third annual message to Congress. In thus defining immigrants, Roosevelt helped fundamentally alter the nation’s immigration policy. As David Zarefsky has succinctly pointed out, presidents play a central role in “defin[ing] political reality.” As I show below, Theodore Roosevelt employed a particular form of definition by dissociation to balance the nation’s hopes and fears of immigrants. He divided immigrants into two discrete categories by drawing distinctions between the fit and unfit immigrant based on the individual immigrant’s ability to adapt to, and productively influence, American identity. For Roosevelt, this ability was based on one’s individual character. Of course, distinguishing fit from unfit immigrants through recourse to individual character required legislation that would help make that possible in practice. Roosevelt was able to pass parts of that legislation; and both those laws and his rhetorical choices had lasting effects on immigration in the United States. Therefore, Roosevelt’s rhetoric on immigration offers insight into one important way in which the modern presidency navigates America’s contradictory views of the immigrant as a symbol of both hope and fear, a discursive choice that continues to be employed in new ways today.

Roosevelt’s America By the time Theodore Roosevelt ascended to the presidency in September 1901, Americans had witnessed several decades of struggle over immigration, which focused initially upon the many Chinese entering California. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Chinese immigrants began applying for citizenship at rates that startled the American people. As more and more Chinese began to immigrate to the United States in the next several years, Congress responded with the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting any Chinese from immigrating to America for the following ten years. As historian Roger Daniels describes it, the 1882 act was “a nodal point in the history of American immigration policy. It marked the moment when the golden doorway of admission to the United States began to narrow and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 185

8/5/15 2:04 PM

186

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

initiated a thirty-nine-year period of successive exclusions of certain kinds of immigrants.” The door closed slowly at first. Months after passing the Chinese Exclusion Act, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882, which levied a fifty-cent head tax on all immigrants, and completely excluded “all foreign convicts except those convicted of political offenses” from entering the country. Nine years later, Congress would expand this list in the Immigration Act of 1891: “That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States .  .  . : All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another or who is assisted by others to come.” As can be seen in the 1891 act, Congress was slowly but clearly placing increased restrictions on who was not to be allowed into the United States. While some of these limitations may be attributed to concern for public health, others indicated a fundamental judgment about the types of people coming to America. There were indeed a lot of immigrants entering the United States in the late 1800s. Compared to earlier decades, the 1880s had seen a doubling of the number of immigrants entering the country. As Susan Martin puts it, “From 1860 to 1880, about 2.5 million immigrants entered the United States each decade; during the 1880s, the number more than doubled to 5.2 million.” Despite a decline in the 1890s due to economic depression, the early 1900s saw a resurgence of immigration. In fact, in terms of the rate of immigration in relation to the overall population, the first decade of the twentieth century saw the highest influx of immigrants since the founding of the nation, and remains the highpoint of immigration to America. Given the strength of the economy at the turn of the century, it is little surprise that so many immigrants were coming to America. Put simply, the last few decades of the nineteenth century transformed the United States into one of the most economically productive and technologically sophisticated nations in the world. This was a trend that would continue into the first decade of the twentieth century. As Nell Irvin Painter has noted, “Roosevelt became President as the country was shucking off the debts and troubles of the depressed 1890s and embracing prosperity.  .  . . The gross national product increased dramatically between the depression year of 1896 and 1901, from $13 billion to $21 billion.” Such economic expansion meant jobs, and immigrants

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 186

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

187

came in droves from economically depressed countries. Of course, the economic boom at the turn of the twentieth century did not affect everyone equally, and the government had done almost nothing to regulate how rapidly growing corporations and trusts treated workers. These fast-paced economic changes, the large influx of immigrants, and increasingly difficult working conditions proved difficult for the nation to manage. That many of the new immigrants after 1880 were from eastern and southern European nations, where they “spoke strange languages and worshiped strange gods,” only complicated matters. Presidents initially chose to deal with this tension by scapegoating immigrants as a threat to the American ideal. Writing of Grover Cleveland, Mary Stuckey has argued that he scapegoated immigrants by suggesting that their allegiance to the United States was tenuous, that they fought among themselves, and that they were “excitable and prone to disruption.” Indeed, Cleveland’s rhetoric seemed to take advantage of the ethnic differences between immigrants. As Stuckey explains, “Rather than differentiate among members of the same immigrant group, this rhetoric tended to differentiate between groups, placing them in the national hierarchy based on their racial and ethnic characteristics, which were thought to be synonymous with ‘character.’ ” Echoing Stuckey’s portrayal of Cleveland’s discourse, Vanessa Beasley has characterized presidential rhetoric between 1885 and 1920 as presenting immigrants as “ignorant, vicious, and dangerous.” Focusing on William McKinley, Beasley notes that, while he made some attempt to distinguish between the best and worst immigrants, “he failed to specify just who these ‘best’ immigrants might be,” ultimately casting “all newcomers as part of the ‘grave peril to the Republic.’ ” In late 1901, Roosevelt entered a presidential office that already had a rhetorical history of scapegoating immigrants in the interest of preserving the American ideal. He also carried his own rhetorical baggage on the subject. As noted above, Roosevelt had penned The Winning of the West more than a decade earlier, in which he lauded the nation’s early immigrants for their physical strength and moral fortitude in the face of the American wilderness. In 1894, Roosevelt had also published an essay called “What ‘Americanism’ Means” in Forum Magazine, which argued that all immigrants should be welcomed who were open to being Americanized, a term indicating that they held no allegiance to their former nation, did not force their religious views on the body politic, and learned to speak English. For Roosevelt, this was possible because “Americanism is a question of spirit, conviction, and purpose, not of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 187

8/5/15 2:04 PM

188

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

creed or birthplace.” In 1895, Roosevelt expressly supported several tenets of the theory of social evolution popular at the time in his review of Benjamin Kidd’s Social Evolution. While he agreed with Kidd that competition was necessary for a society to advance, he disagreed with the level of competition needed and the result it would have on individuals. Far from believing that social competition would ultimately lead to extreme selfishness and violence, Roosevelt argued, “When humanity has reached a certain stage it will cause the individual more pain, a greater sense of degradation and shame and misery, to steal, to murder or to lie, than to work hard and suffer discomfort.” Indeed, what was needed was not an excessively competitive spirit or intellectual cunning but a certain set of “humdrum qualities,” which included “love of order, ability to fight well and breed well, capacity to subordinate the interests of the individual to the interests of the community.” According to Roosevelt, “The race that has [these qualities] is sure to overturn the race whose members have brilliant intellects, but who are cold and selfish and timid, who do not breed well or fight well, and who are not capable of disinterested love of the community.” It is little wonder that a president so seemingly obsessed with what it meant to be American during the decade that saw the greatest immigration influx ever to the United States talked often of immigration. What may be surprising was how he chose to handle his exigencies rhetorically.

Roosevelt’s Immigrants As president, Theodore Roosevelt consistently defined immigrants through dissociation by distinguishing between the right and wrong kind, thus attempting to overcome the nation’s contradictory views of the immigrant as a sign of both hope and fear. What distinguished the two types was that the right kind had the individual qualities that made it possible for him or her to become American, while the wrong kind did not. Thus Roosevelt employed his Americanism to demarcate good from bad immigrants. According to Roosevelt, one of the most important characteristics of the immigrant that offered America hope was that neither religion nor nationality mattered. Nowhere was this sentiment made plainer than in a speech Roosevelt delivered to the Sons of the American Revolution on May 2, 1902, in which he claimed, “we treat Americanism primarily as a matter of spirit and purpose, and in the broadest sense we regard every man as a good American,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 188

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

189

whatever his creed, whatever his birthplace, if he is true to the ideals of this Republic.” Dismissing the importance of religion and nationality, Roosevelt insisted that what defines an American is “spirit and purpose.” Being American transcended nationality and religious affiliation. While Roosevelt might have argued that “no fellow-citizen of ours is entitled to any peculiar regard because of the way in which he worships his Maker, or because of the birthplace of himself or his parents,” he meant this almost exclusively for Judeo-Christian Europeans, the only exception being the Japanese. As he put it in his December 1905 message to Congress, “We cannot afford to consider whether he is Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Gentile; whether he is Englishman or Irishman, Frenchman or German, Japanese, Italian, Scandinavian, Slav, or Magyar. What we should desire to find out is the individual quality of the individual man.” For Roosevelt, the American people could not “afford” to judge an immigrant on the basis of nationality or religion because the United States still needed and could benefit from the right kind of immigrant. Instead, all immigrants needed to be assessed on an individual basis. As he noted in the same message, “If the man who seeks to come here is from the moral and social standpoint of such a character as to bid fair to add value to the community he should be heartily welcomed.” That the right kind of immigrant could bring added value to the country suggested that not allowing that type of immigrant into the country meant losing out on the increased worth. For Roosevelt, then, the United States needed good immigrants if it was to continue to grow as a nation. As for the Japanese, Roosevelt’s reason for including them in his list of nationalities seems less clear, but he was accepting of the Japanese. In his 1906 message to Congress, he asked explicitly for “fair treatment for the Japanese,” arguing that they deserved the same opportunities as “Germans or Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians, or Italians.” He then recommended that Congress pass an act “specifically providing for the naturalization of Japanese who come here intending to become American citizens.” In an editorial that appeared in Outlook magazine just two months after Roosevelt left office in March 1909, he offered some clear reasons for this proposal when he asserted, “The Japanese are a highly civilized people of extraordinary military, artistic, and industrial development; they are proud, warlike, and sensitive.” But even here, Roosevelt remained consistent in wanting only the best of this civilized people. Arguing that the United States had a right to keep out large masses of immigrants from any country, Roosevelt suggested this could be accomplished so long as the policy would let in only those of a particular “class—that is, they

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 189

8/5/15 2:04 PM

190

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

should be travelers, students, teachers, scientific investigators, men engaged in international business, men sojourning in the land for pleasure or study.” As with the Chinese, Roosevelt hoped to restrict immigration from Japan to only those who had something intellectual or financial to offer. While Roosevelt resisted essentializing immigrants on the basis of nationality or religion, he was, nevertheless, not willing to accept everyone. The reason for this was that the nation’s future depended on the sum of its parts. As he explained to a crowd in San Francisco in May 1903, “For weal or for woe, we of this country are indissolubly bound together. In the long run we shall go up or go down accordingly as the whole nation goes up or goes down.” Roosevelt did not, however, seem to believe that society could raise every person up to the level America demanded: “if the individual citizen has not got the right stuff in him you cannot get it out of him, because it is not there to get out. No law that the wit of man has ever devised ever has made or ever will make the fool wise, the coward brave, or the weakling strong.” One could be taught to help oneself, but only if one possessed some inner quality that Roosevelt understood as the “right stuff.” While the individual was what mattered, the only way to measure a person’s worth was by comparison to what it meant to be American. Nothing was more important to Roosevelt than making sure that “the citizenship of this country should not be debased.” Like a pure metal, this meant that one had to be careful with what was added to what already existed. Just as immigrants would be framed as “dangerous and destructive pollutants” years later, when environmental issues became salient, Roosevelt believed that some immigrants posed a direct threat to the unique American identity; he adamantly insisted that Americans were a distinctive people. At the opening of the Jamestown Exposition in April 1907, Roosevelt explained this American uniqueness as the admixture of many peoples: “Before the outbreak of the Revolution the American people, not only because of their surroundings, physical and spiritual, but because of the mixture of blood that had already begun to take place, represented a new and distinct ethnic type. This type has never been fixed in blood.” By highlighting a “mixture of blood,” Roosevelt asserted that American identity was born from the intermingling and intermarrying of early settlers. It was this mixing of blood that helped create a unique national identity; it was not a fixed, immutable identity. Noting the “new waves of immigration” that had continued from “the colonial days” and through “our birth as a nation,” Roosevelt claimed that immigrants had been “from time to time swept hither across the ocean, now from

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 190

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

191

one country, now from another.” Moreover, this process had continued through “the last sixty years [as] the tide of immigration has been at the full.” Suggesting that recent waves of immigration were nothing more than a continuation of that which had occurred since the colonial days, Roosevelt made a claim about how each new wave was incorporated into the body politic. First, he argued, “the new-comers are soon absorbed into our eager national life, and are radically and profoundly changed thereby, the rapidity of their assimilation being marvelous.” Roosevelt’s first point, then, was to argue that each new wave of immigrants was quickly changed through a process of assimilation. However, Roosevelt made a second argument: “But each group of newcomers, as it adds its blood to the life, also changes it somewhat, and this change and growth and development have gone on steadily, generation by generation, throughout three centuries.” And herein lay Roosevelt’s great concern with controlling who entered the nation. As America transformed each new group of immigrants into American citizens, it, too, was changed by this assimilation process. Although Roosevelt presented the transformation as “growth and development,” he clearly worried that it could result in a debasing of America that could retard or even reverse the nation’s advancement. For Roosevelt, what ultimately defined the American people was, quite simply, character. Speaking in Pittsburgh on July 4, 1902, Roosevelt distinguished between intellect and character. As he put it, “though we need the highest qualities of the intellect in order to work out practical schemes for their solutions, yet we need a thousand times more what counts for many, many times as much as intellect—we need character.” While intelligence was beneficial, it could not substitute for character. Speaking a year later in San Francisco, Roosevelt defined character as “the fundamental virtues that have marked every great and prosperous nation since the dim years when history dawned.” These fundamental virtues included “decency, honesty, courage, hardihood; the spirit of fair dealing as between man and man, the spirit that dares, that foresees, that endures, that triumphs; and added to all those qualities, the saving grace of common sense.” Or, as he presented it in his fourth message to Congress, “Good Americanism is a matter of heart, of conscience, of lofty aspiration, of sound common sense.” Believing in the importance of character, Roosevelt further asserted that the most fit immigrants from different nations added specific and unique qualities to the admixture of Americanism. In his Jamestown address, he noted that the “early English colonial stock” had contributed two aspects to the young nation through “its twin individualities, the mark of the Cavalier

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 191

8/5/15 2:04 PM

192

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

and of the Puritan.” Speaking to a German audience in Baltimore in 1903, Roosevelt noted that the Germans contributed by fighting with loyalty and valor for the “flag that was theirs by inheritance or adoption.” Speaking to an Irish audience on St. Patrick’s Day in 1905, Roosevelt argued, “The people who have come to this country from Ireland have contributed to the stock of our common citizenship qualities which are essential to the welfare of every great nation.” These qualities included “rugged character, strong women, [and] the elemental, the indispensable virtues of working hard in time of peace and fighting hard in time of war.” For a group of Jews celebrating the 250th anniversary of Jewish settlement in the new world, Roosevelt suggested “that while the Jews of the United States, who now number more than a million, have remained loyal to their faith and their race traditions, they have become indissolubly incorporated in the great army of American citizenship.” Becoming an inseparable part of America, Roosevelt added, “they are honorably distinguished by their industry, their obedience to law, and their devotion to the national welfare.” Whether speaking of the English, German, Irish, or Jews, Roosevelt walked a definitional tightrope. He argued that each of these groups had become American, suggesting that they had been transformed into something new. Yet, he repeatedly noted their “race” as distinct in what it contributed to the American identity. Moreover, each “race” was treated as a whole group of immigrants, contradicting his own insistence on measuring each immigrant individually. Perhaps such rhetorical confusion resulted from the makeup of his audience in each instance. That is, when faced with an audience of a specific race, he spoke of the benefits of that race, acknowledging its distinctiveness. When speaking to or writing for a diverse audience, Roosevelt insisted that nationality and religion did not matter. While this may seem a contradiction, another way to see it is that Roosevelt believed that each race could be subdivided into different classes of people. That the individual’s self-worth was most important did not mean that individuals from a shared racial background lacked shared traits. Indeed, Roosevelt believed just this, influenced by Social Darwinists like the French intellectual Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon’s Psychology of Peoples, a particular favorite of Roosevelt’s, argued both that all races shared important characteristics and that each race could be understood as a hierarchical pyramid. According to Le Bon, each race of people shared the same fundamental characteristics, which had been primarily handed down by ancestors and were only moderately modifiable by cultural or environmental changes. Such racial differences were not biological; they

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 192

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

193

were based on “the changes in their [the races’] fundamental ideas” that happen over time. As different races had adopted new ideas at varying rates, Le Bon ultimately divided all races into four categories—primitive, inferior, average, and superior. While these distinctions were often vague, and little attention was given to average races, Le Bon was clear about the importance of superior races, who “alone have been capable of great inventions in the arts, the sciences, and industry. It is to them that is due the high level reached by civilisation at the present day.” By contrast, the primitive and inferior races were plagued with many hindrances, most especially their inability to reason effectively. Instead, they had short attention spans, imitated others, overgeneralized evidence, allowed emotions to direct their actions, and could neither make clear observations nor anticipate future consequences. More important, they had a weak character, which education could not remedy—at least not in a single generation. Since racial differences were based on the evolution of ideas, Le Bon had to explain where such ideas came from. He did so by suggesting that each idea, “whether it be a scientific, artistic, philosophic, or religious idea,” must “be adopted at first by a small number of apostles, the intensity of whose faith and the authority of whose names give great prestige.” Once they had adopted the ideas, these prestigious individuals “then act much more by suggestion than by demonstration” in spreading them to the rest of society. Identifying this process led him to argue that superior races consisted of a three-tiered hierarchy: “a sort of pyramid of steps, the majority of which are formed by the masses of the population, the upper steps by the intelligent classes, and the point of the pyramid by a very small élite of men of science, inventors, artists, and writers.” According to Le Bon, only the elite determined the advancement of the race, with the intelligent class helping to spread their ideas. In line with Le Bon’s argument, Roosevelt’s approach to immigration was focused upon keeping out the bottom tier of other races’ pyramids. He repeatedly argued that the United States needed to continue to accept all the good immigrants it could. As he put it directly in December 1904, “There is no danger of having too many immigrants of the right kind.” Even when addressing concerns the following year that immigrants were unevenly distributed in the Northeast and West Coast, Roosevelt continued to insist that “we cannot have too much immigration of the right sort”; he quickly added, “of course, it is desirable that even the right kind of immigration should be properly distributed in this country.” So long as immigrants were of the right variety, Roosevelt supported their entrance into the United States.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 193

8/5/15 2:04 PM

194

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

Roosevelt was just as adamant about keeping out the wrong sort of immigrant. Writing to Congress in December 1903, he noted that while good immigration was positive for the nation, “we should have none at all of the wrong kind. The need is to devise some system by which undesirable immigrants shall be kept out entirely.” This argument required that, in addition to identifying the right sort of immigrant, who could become American, Roosevelt also had to clearly define the wrong type of immigrant, who could never become a citizen of the United States, especially since Roosevelt, borrowing the phrase from a Supreme Court decision on naturalization, believed American citizenship to be an “inestimable heritage, whether it proceeds from birth within the country or is obtained by naturalization.” That is, Roosevelt had to distinguish the wrong kind of immigrant, who posed a threat to America’s national identity, from the right kind, who would strengthen the country. As noted above, when Roosevelt became president, there was already a rather long list of those who should be kept from immigrating to the United States, among them the insane, felons, and polygamists. In his first message to Congress, which was read in both branches on December 3, 1901, Roosevelt indicated that he wanted more. He noted first that the nation needed “every honest and efficient immigrant fitted to become an American citizen, every immigrant who comes here to stay, who brings here a strong body, a stout heart, a good head, and a resolute purpose to do his duty well in every way and to bring up his children as law-abiding and God-fearing members of the community.” In contrast, he asserted, “there should be a comprehensive law enacted with the object of working a threefold improvement over our present system.” The new president then identified the three classes of immigrants that he wanted stricter laws to exclude. The first class of immigrant Roosevelt identified was the miscreant. As he put it, “we should aim to exclude absolutely not only all persons who are known to be believers in anarchistic principles or members of anarchistic societies, but also all persons who are of a low moral tendency or of unsavory reputation.” While Roosevelt did not clarify what he meant by “low moral tendency” or “unsavory reputation,” he had already defined the anarchist earlier in his message when discussing McKinley’s assassin, Leon Czolgosz. Roosevelt referred to Czolgosz as “a professed anarchist, inflamed by the teachings of professed anarchists, and probably also by the reckless utterances of those who, on the stump and in the public press, appeal to the dark and evil spirits of malice and greed, envy and sullen hatred.” Czolgosz had acted because others had played on his feelings of malice, greed, and envy. Czolgosz’s guilt lay in

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 194

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

195

his inability to resist such “dark and evil spirits.” That is, Czolgosz was a man of “low moral tendency.” Indeed, according to Roosevelt, all anarchists were unsavory, and this was evident in their “perverted instincts,” which caused them to “prefer confusion and chaos to the most beneficent social order.” Ultimately, anarchists were guided by their “own evil passions.” When he returned to this plea four years later, Roosevelt put the matter this way: “Not merely the Anarchist, but every man of Anarchistic tendencies, all violent and disorderly people, all people of bad character, the incompetent, the lazy, the vicious, the physically unfit, defective, or degenerate should be kept out.” For Roosevelt, the miscreant was an individual incapable of making right decisions or appreciating the benefits of democratic society. One with such low morals had no place in Roosevelt’s America. In addition to keeping out miscreants, Roosevelt also wanted to exclude the stupid. As he argued in his first message to Congress, “The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure by a careful and not merely perfunctory educational test some intelligent capacity to appreciate American institutions and act sanely as American citizens.” Noting that this would not keep out all anarchists, since some were part of “the intelligent criminal class,” Roosevelt believed that keeping out the unintelligent would “tend to decrease the sum of ignorance, so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, malignant passion, and hatred of order, out of which anarchistic sentiment inevitably springs.” For Roosevelt, all anarchists were either criminals or unintelligent. None were to be allowed into the United States. While Roosevelt wanted to keep out the unintelligent, his definition of intelligence was not something that could be measured. Indeed, he emphasized that the “intelligent capacity” he most wanted in citizens was common sense, which was an aspect of character. Speaking as vice president at the Minnesota Fair just four days before McKinley was shot, Roosevelt made this connection when he argued that “the chief factor in any man’s success or failure must be his own character—that is, the sum of his common sense, his courage, his virile energy and capacity.” Common sense was the intellectual capacity of one’s character. The third class of immigrants Roosevelt wanted kept out of the United States was the destitute. As he put it in his first message to Congress, “all persons should be excluded who are below a certain standard of economic fitness to enter our industrial field as competitors with American labor. There should be proper proof of personal capacity to earn an American living.” In a nation where Emma Lazarus’s “The New Colossus” would be memorialized at

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 195

8/5/15 2:04 PM

196

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

the Statue of Liberty in 1903, calling on the world to send America “your tired, your poor,” Roosevelt’s call to exclude those not economically fit might have seemed alarming. However, the phrase “personal capacity” hinted at something other than simple material wealth. Roosevelt did not seek to keep out the poor; he meant to keep out those who lacked the character to earn a living. In a speech at the Alamo in April 1905, Roosevelt argued, for instance, “Every man of us at times needs a helping hand stretched out to him; and shame to any man who will not stretch out that helping hand to his brother if that brother needs it. But if the brother lies down, you can do mighty little in carrying him. You can help him up; but once up he has got to walk himself.” Here, Roosevelt made the common claim that it was best to help others help themselves. Moreover, he argued, those unwilling to help themselves should be left behind. Once again, Roosevelt’s exclusion of the destitute was an additional attempt to exclude those who lacked the right character. In terms of immigration policy, this meant that those deemed to lack the capacity to learn to help themselves did not deserve entrance to the United States. Seeking to expand immigration laws to keep out miscreants, the stupid, and the destitute, Roosevelt’s intention was to exclude those who lacked the proper character to become Americans. Ultimately, his notion of character was predicated on whether or not one demonstrated the American values of individual initiative, endurance, and persistence. According to Roosevelt, these values defined the nation. At the end of his address at the opening of the Jamestown Exposition in April 1907, Roosevelt put the matter this way: “God willing, [America] shall remain as our fathers who founded it meant it to be—a government in which each man stands on his worth as a man, where each is given the largest personal liberty consistent with securing the wellbeing of the whole.” Perhaps most important for Roosevelt, he also believed that the nation’s founders meant America to be a place “where . . . we strive continually to secure for each man such equality of opportunity that in the strife of life he may have a fair chance to show the stuff that is in him.” Returning to the preeminence of character over book learning, Roosevelt insisted that the United States would continue to flourish, “if the average of character in the individual citizen is sufficiently high, if he possesses those qualities which make him worthy of respect in his family life and in his work outside, as well as the qualities which fit him for success in the hard struggle of actual existence.” Roosevelt was “celebrating a heroic individualism in service to a greater good,” which Leroy Dorsey identified in Roosevelt’s early writings. But this was only half the story of President Roosevelt.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 196

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

197

As president, Roosevelt also articulated his belief that US immigration and naturalization laws should be tightened because not everyone was fit for American citizenship. This belief was rooted in his Social Darwinist views about the evolution of races. Indeed, Roosevelt’s reasoning for excluding those with low character was necessitated by his belief that some simply lacked the natural capacity for personal growth and improvement. Explicating the importance of “the character of our citizenship” to San Franciscans in May 1903, Roosevelt declared, as noted above, that no law could change the fundamental character of an individual. For Roosevelt, nothing could be done to help some because “when we get down to those places where you see humanity in the raw then it is the native strength of the man that will count more than aught else.” To see “humanity in the raw” was to see the nature of the individual, and some individuals lacked the natural strength needed for American citizenship. As Roosevelt argued, “we cannot afford in this community ever to weaken the spirit of individual initiative, ever to make any man believe that if he cannot walk himself somehow the law can carry him. It cannot.” Insisting again that each man must learn “to help himself,” Roosevelt was comfortable excluding those who did not.

Conclusion As president, Theodore Roosevelt neither lionized nor demonized immigrants. Not completely. Instead, he diligently redefined immigrants by carefully distinguishing the right sort of immigrant, to be welcomed into the United States, from the wrong type of immigrant, to be kept out. Defining the very heart of American identity as strong individual character, Roosevelt juxtaposed an image of the unfit immigrant, who lacked the personal character to rise to the challenges of the “inestimable heritage” of American citizenship. Instead of basing his distinction upon a people’s nationality or religion, Roosevelt insisted repeatedly that, at least for Europeans and the Japanese, one could measure an individual immigrant’s character on the basis of specific qualities, such as one’s political views, level of common sense, and capacity for economic independence. While Roosevelt made this distinction consistently throughout his presidency, his rhetorical balancing act between celebrating and scapegoating the immigrant established two distinct notions often employed in modern anti-immigration discourse—assimilation and contamination.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 197

8/5/15 2:04 PM

198

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

The melting pot had been a rhetorical trope in American immigration discourse long before Roosevelt’s presidency. Roosevelt’s speeches and writings on immigration during his years in the White House reveal that he believed that all immigrants needed to become Americans above all else. However, he did not believe this meant that immigrants had to assimilate completely. In his comments to Jewish, Irish, and German audiences, Roosevelt praised the specific qualities that each added to Americanism. For Roosevelt, this additive process was positive so long as the immigrants arriving in the United States were representative of the best of their homeland. However, the Americanizing metaphor in his immigration discourse may be read as promoting complete assimilation. Nor did Roosevelt believe that all immigrants were dangerous. However, he did repeatedly voice his concern that the wrong kind of immigrant could debase American identity. Seeing Americanism as a unique mixture of the positive qualities of different peoples who had immigrated to the United States, Roosevelt worried that too much of the wrong sort of immigration might destroy the amalgamation. As his debasement metaphor suggested, Americanism was a precious metal that needed to be protected from weakening by inferior elements. Such a metaphor is a clear precursor to the pollutant metaphor that has been employed against immigrants more recently. Roosevelt’s concern also made it possible for others to make such claims about whole races or religious groups. While Roosevelt wanted to judge each immigrant individually, it would have been easy to adapt his debasement concern to entire groups, which is, of course, what others did. In the end, Roosevelt’s distinction between the right and wrong sort of immigrant was more complex than others have suggested. Indeed, his immigration rhetoric carefully navigated between the competing images of the immigrant as a symbol of hope and of fear that have long marked the two points between which the immigrant oscillates in the American imagination. Given the country’s long history as a nation of immigrants, the very real need for immigrant workers in the US economy, and the worry over how new immigrants were changing America, Roosevelt offered an image of fit immigrants, as distinct from the unfit ones, needed to reach equilibrium. To reach this balance, however, Roosevelt based his distinction between the good and bad immigrant on the issue of personal character. Ultimately, quality of character proved, as it always does, difficult to measure. Definitional distinctions will always be difficult, which is important to acknowledge, since presidents have followed Teddy Roosevelt in continuing to

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 198

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

199

define immigrants through dissociation. And one must imagine that they will continue to do so for many, many decades to come. Given the nation’s competing views of immigrants, how could it be otherwise? The issue is not whether presidents will offer definitional distinctions but how they will do it. Whether such distinctions are made between legal and illegal immigrants (e.g., George W. Bush) or skilled versus unskilled workers (e.g., Barack Obama), such distinctions are never clean. But the how does matter a great deal, as presidents continue to play a significant role in shaping the American people’s understanding of their shared political reality. As this case study of Roosevelt’s immigration rhetoric has shown, such dissociative definitions of immigrants do have real consequences. note s 1. See Stephen E. Lucas, “Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘The Man with the Muck-Rake,’ ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59, no. 4 (1973): 452–62; Amy L. Heyse, “Theodore Roosevelt, ‘Address of President Roosevelt at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the Office Building of the House of Representatives, Saturday, April 14, 1906 (The Man with the Muck-Rake),’ ” Voices of Democracy 5 (2010): 1–17; Mary Stuckey, “Establishing the Rhetorical Presidency Through Presidential Rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt and the Brownsville Raid,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 92, no. 3 (2006): 287–309; and Jon Paulson, “Theodore Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of Citizenship: On Tour in New England, 1902,” Communication Quarterly 50, no. 2 (2002): 123–34. 2. Leroy Dorsey, We Are All Americans, Pure and Simple: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007), 4. 3. Leroy Dorsey and Rachel Harlow, “‘We Want Americans Pure and Simple’: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 6, no. 1 (2003): 58. 4. Ibid., 62. 5. Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 411. 6. Ibid., 413. 7. Thomas G. Dyer, Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 129–42. 8. Vanessa Beasley, “Presidential Rhetoric and Immigration: Balancing Tensions Between Hope and Fear,” in Who Belongs in America? Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration, ed. Vanessa Beasley (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006), 14. 9. For a description of these fears, see Jay P. Childers, “The Democratic Balance: President McKinley’s Assassination as Domestic Trauma,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 99, no. 2 (2013): 156–79. 10. Theodore Roosevelt, “Third Annual Message,” December 7, 1903, http://www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29544. 11. David Zarefsky, “Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2004): 611. 12. Ibid., 612. It should be noted here that Zarefsky adopts his notion of defi nition by dissociation from Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argument by dissociation. See Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1991).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 199

8/5/15 2:04 PM

200

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

13. Najia Aarim-Heriot, Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–1882 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 194. 14. Roger Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigration Since 1882 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004), 3. 15. Susan Martin, A Nation of Immigrants (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 105. 16. Ibid. 17. Roger Daniels, Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 125. 18. For a wonderful history of that transformation, see H. W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865–1900 (New York: Anchor Books, 2010). 19. Nell Irvin Painter, Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 171. 20. Daniels, Coming to America, 121. 21. Mary E. Stuckey, Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identity (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 138. 22. Ibid., 138–39. 23. Vanessa B. Beasley, You, the People: American National Identity in Presidential Rhetoric (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004), 78. 24. Theodore Roosevelt, “What ‘Americanism’ Means,” Forum Magazine, April 1894, 205. 25. Theodore Roosevelt, “Kidd’s ‘Social Evolution,’ ” North American Review 161, no. 464 (July 1895): 99. 26. Ibid., 109. 27. Theodore Roosevelt, “At the Banquet of the Society of the Sons of the American Revolution,” May 2, 1902, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/5.txt. 28. Theodore Roosevelt, “Fourth Annual Message,” December 6, 1904, http://www.presi dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29545. 29. Theodore Roosevelt, “Fifth Annual Message,” December 5, 1905, http://www.presi dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29546. 30. Ibid. 31. Theodore Roosevelt, “Sixth Annual Message,” December 3, 1906, http://www.presi dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29547. 32. Ibid. 33. Theodore Roosevelt, “The Japanese Question,” Outlook, May 8, 1909, 61–62. 34. Ibid., 61. 35. Theodore Roosevelt, “At Banquet Tendered by the Citizens of San Francisco,” May 12, 1903, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/438.txt. 36. Ibid. 37. Roosevelt, “Fourth Annual Message.” 38. J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 570. 39. Theodore Roosevelt, “At the Opening of the Jamestown Exposition,” April 26, 1907, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/247.txt. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Roosevelt, “At a Banquet Given by Attorney-General Knox, at Pittsburgh, PA., July 4, 1902,” http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/341.txt. 45. Roosevelt, “At Banquet Tendered.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 200

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

201

46. Ibid. 47. Roosevelt, “Fourth Annual Message.” 48. Roosevelt, “Opening of the Jamestown Exposition.” 49. Theodore Roosevelt, “At the Saengerfest,” June 15, 1903, http://www.theodore -roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/84.txt. 50. Theodore Roosevelt, “Address at the Dinner of the Society of Friendly Sons of St. Patrick,” March 17, 1905, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/ 125.txt. 51. Theodore Roosevelt, “Letter from President Roosevelt,” November 16, 1905, http:// www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/797.pdf. 52. Ibid. 53. In an 1896 letter to Henry Cabot Lodge, Roosevelt noted that he had read the work of Le Bon and found his views on race “very fine and true.” The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, ed. Elting E. Morison, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), 637. Roosevelt also noted in 1914, to an audience that included Le Bon, that The Psychology of Peoples “never left me in all my travels and . . . remained always on my table during my presidency.” Robert Nye, The Origins of Crowd Psychology: Gustave Le Bon and the Crisis of Mass Democracy in the Third Republic (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1975), 88. 54. It should be noted here that Le Bon’s use of the term “race” was synonymous with “nation.” Indeed, it seems that Roosevelt and others shared that assumption. Such usage was and perhaps still is fairly common. At the time of this writing, the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definition of the noun “race” (n.6, 1b): “A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. In early use freq. with modifying adjective, as British race, Roman race, etc.” 55. Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of Peoples (New York: Macmillan, 1898), 185. 56. Ibid., 28. 57. Ibid., 172. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid., 42–43. 60. Roosevelt, “Fourth Annual Message.” 61. Roosevelt, “Fifth Annual Message.” 62. Roosevelt, “Third Annual Message.” 63. Ibid. 64. Theodore Roosevelt, “First Annual Message,” December 3, 1901, http://www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29542. 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Theodore Roosevelt, “National Duties: Address at Minnesota State Fair,” September 2, 1901, Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/ txtspeeches/678.pdf. 73. Roosevelt, “First Annual Message.” 74. Theodore Roosevelt, “In Front of the Alamo,” April 7, 1905, Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/132.txt. 75. Roosevelt, “Opening of the Jamestown Exposition.” 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 201

8/5/15 2:04 PM

202

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

78. Dorsey, We Are All Americans, 48. 79. Roosevelt, “At Banquet Tendered.” 80. Ibid.

bibl io gr a ph y Aarim-Heriot, Najia. Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–1882. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003. Beasley, Vanessa. “Presidential Rhetoric and Immigration: Balancing Tensions Between Hope and Fear.” In Who Belongs in America? Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration, ed. Vanessa Beasley, 3–18. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. ———. You, the People: American National Identity in Presidential Rhetoric. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004. Brands, H. W. American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865–1900. New York: Anchor Books, 2010. Childers, Jay P. “The Democratic Balance: President McKinley’s Assassination as Domestic Trauma.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 99, no. 2 (2013): 156–79. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. Daniels, Roger. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. ———. Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigration Since 1882. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004. Dorsey, Leroy G. We Are All Americans, Pure and Simple: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. Dorsey, Leroy G., and Rachel M. Harlow. “‘We Want Americans Pure and Simple’: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 6, no. 1 (2003): 55–78. Dyer, Thomas G. Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980. Heyse, Amy L. “Theodore Roosevelt, ‘Address of President Roosevelt at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the Office Building of the House of Representatives, Saturday, April 14, 1906 (The Man with the Muck-Rake).’” Voices of Democracy 5 (2010): 1–17. Le Bon, Gustave. The Psychology of Peoples. New York: Macmillan, 1898. Lucas, Stephen E. “Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘The Man with the Muck-Rake.’ ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59, no. 4 (1973): 452–62. Martin, Susan. A Nation of Immigrants. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Nye, Robert. The Origins of Crowd Psychology: Gustave Le Bon and the Crisis of Mass Democracy in the Third Republic. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1975. Painter, Nell Irvin. Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987. Paulson, Jon. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of Citizenship: On Tour in New England, 1902.” Communication Quarterly 50, no. 2 (2002): 123–34. Roosevelt, Theodore. “Address at the Dinner of the Society of Friendly Sons of St. Patrick.” March 17, 1905. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/ images/research/txtspeeches/125.txt. ———. “At a Banquet Given by Attorney-General Knox, at Pittsburgh, PA., July 4, 1902.” Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/ txtspeeches/341.txt.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 202

8/5/15 2:04 PM

defining the right sort of immigrant

|

203

———. “At the Banquet of the Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.” May 2, 1902. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/ txtspeeches/5.txt. ———. “At the Opening of the Jamestown Exposition.” April 26, 1907. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/247.txt. ———. “At the Saengerfest.” June 15, 1903. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore -roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/84.txt. ———. “Fifth Annual Message.” December 5, 1905. The American Presidency Project. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29546. ———. “First Annual Message.” December 3, 1901. The American Presidency Project. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29542. ———. “Fourth Annual Message.” December 6, 1904. The American Presidency Project. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29545. ———. “In Front of the Alamo.” April 7, 1905. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www .theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/132.txt. ———. “The Japanese Question.” Outlook, May 8, 1909, 61–62. ———. “Kidd’s ‘Social Evolution.’” North American Review 161, no. 464 (July 1895): 94–109. ———. “Letter from President Roosevelt.” November 16, 1905. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/797.pdf. ———. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. Edited by Elting E. Morison. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. ———. “National Duties: Address at Minnesota State Fair.” September 2, 1901. Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/ 678.pdf. ———. “Sixth Annual Message.” December 3, 1906. The American Presidency Project. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29547. ———. “Third Annual Message.” December 7, 1903. The American Presidency Project. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29544. ———. “What ‘Americanism’ Means.” Forum Magazine, April 1894, 196–206. Smith, Rogers M. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Stuckey, Mary E. Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identity. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004. ———. “Establishing the Rhetorical Presidency Through Presidential Rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt and the Brownsville Raid.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 92, no. 3 (2006): 287–309. Zarefsky, David. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2004): 607–19.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 203

8/5/15 2:04 PM

9

immigration as histories of mob-ility: Personal Storytelling in the Where Are You From? Project Alessandra B. Von Burg

The United States is home to nearly 40 million legal immigrants (12.8 percent of the population) and around 12 million illegal immigrants (3.8 percent of the population), making it the largest recipient of immigrants in the world. As a “nation of immigrants,” the United States takes pride in its history of welcoming the tired, poor, huddled masses who took the risk of crossing oceans to make this new land their home. Politicians tell stories of immigrant fathers arriving with nothing but the clothes on their back as a testament to the American Dream. The familiar story of making it no matter where you are from, however, seems forgotten in recent discourses about immigration, including the recent legislative battles in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, and Alabama. The inconsistency between the immigrant past of the United States and the current discourses about “recent” immigrants reveals a schism between the way we understand the rights and practices of permanent legal citizens, and those of legal and undocumented immigrants. The oppositional framing of citizens and noncitizens creates an understanding of recent immigrants as “others,” even as they go to school, work, and live side by side with citizens. While immigration laws differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, the current discriminatory and punitive policies against immigrants, even the children of immigrants who know only the United States as their home, fail to consider the process through which “citizen” status becomes legitimized. In an effort to reconcile the schism between theory and practice in discourses of immigration, I have proposed a renovation of citizenship to reimagine citizenship for noncitizens. This renovation of the way we address citizenship is based on the rhetorical canons of memory, to remember what we already know, and invention, to create something new. A renovation of citizenship repositions

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 204

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

205

the story of the United States as a nation of immigrants by connecting this familiar metanarrative to recent immigrants’ stories of mobility. Beyond the renovation of citizenship, connecting the rights and duties of those already here to the newcomers who are fighting for those same rights, a renovation of immigration starts from the accepted historical premise of the United States (a nation of immigrants), but challenges it with a renewed definition that centers on mobility. Immigration, redefined as histories of mobility, is a rhetorical phenomenon that needs imagination to remember the past and to invent a future that addresses the current reality. Because mobility is not just a US phenomenon but a global one, in this chapter I outline a rhetorical approach to the study of immigration as centered on histories of mobility. I argue that discourses of immigration as the process of moving from a less developed country (than the United States), with fewer opportunities for its citizens, to the United States, conceived as a better nation (than others), are outdated. The renovation that I propose repositions citizens and noncitizens, long-term residents and newcomers, documented and undocumented migrants, on a horizontal level, not a vertical hierarchy. This reorganization happens through an understanding of immigration as the rights and freedoms to move, and the rhetorical implications of a new language, a new vocabulary that describes everyone as mobile. This chapter proceeds in three movements. First, I present a rethinking of old and new stories of mobility horizontally, considering their similarities and differences across time. This horizontal understanding of time allows the contours of the “mobile citizen” to emerge as stubbornly consistent. The second move brings us to the modern and technological present, in a time when digital presence allows citizens and noncitizens to “move” while staying where they are, making connections that surpass other monumental inventions such as the printing press, telegraph, telephone, train, and many other machines that have brought people together. This technological development brings citizens and noncitizens closer together horizontally. The final move builds on the other two to reshape our understanding of immigration as the practice that brings people metaphorically and technologically closer together, what I call a mob-ility that is all about the people who constitute it. Just like crowd sourcing, this mob-ility is about citizens and noncitizens teaching each other, as part of a human mob whose force becomes stronger than a top-down approach to the study of immigration. Based on the renovation of immigration as histories of movement, the three moves are demonstrated through the digital choreography of the Where Are

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 205

8/5/15 2:04 PM

206

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

You From? Project (WAYF), a collection of short video interviews about experiences of mobility and migration to the United States. The interviews are available as three- to five-minute videos, edited from thirty- to forty-minute conversations, on a multimedia website (whereareyoufromproject.org) where users can watch and comment on the videos, as well as share their own stories of mobility by uploading videos or text. Users can also see where the forty-nine participants are from on an interactive map. Based on the premise that stories teach us values, as Walter Fisher argues, and resonate persuasively when they have coherence and fidelity, the forty-nine WAYF interviews provide personal narratives of immigrants, newcomers, legal and undocumented residents, refugees, and naturalized and long-term US citizens. The WAYF interviews tell stories that are similar to one another and to those of other immigrants who have moved to the United States. The stories support the three moves that I argue are central to renovating immigration as histories of movement, but they also challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about who is an immigrant.

Move 1: Time to Move Through Identification Although the United States claims to be a nation of immigrants, antiimmigration sentiments and policies that seek to restrict, isolate, and deport noncitizens are on the rise. Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have aggressively addressed the “problem” of immigration; many residents embrace discriminatory policies as the solution because they see immigrants as “others.” Numbers of deportations have risen, and even law-abiding, long-term, legal immigrants live in fear that they or their loved ones may be targeted. On the other hand, comprehensive immigration reform may be under way. Small successes for undocumented immigrants such as the DREAMers garner media attention, demonstrating that it is time to address all histories of mobility as a renovation of prevalent understandings of immigration. The kairotic moment suggests not only that the time is right for rhetoricians to develop new theoretical approaches to the study of immigration, but also serves as a reminder that discourses around and about immigration change over time. From Irish to Japanese immigrants, from Italian to Chinese laborers, from the model immigrant to the undesirable one, specific ethnicities and nationalities have been targets of xenophobic discourses and even violence, simply because they were the “wrong” kind of immigrant at a particular time.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 206

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

207

A renovation of immigration centered on histories of mobility relates to temporal and kinetic processes. The horizontal repositioning of stories from various times and places demonstrates that experiences are as varied as they are random, but that all mobile citizens have common elements. The WAYF interviews provide examples of these commonalities. When one moves, timing matters, as the political and social conditions of both the sending and receiving countries matter (wars, famine, economic and political crisis, power systems). Timing matters not only in the receiving country (in this case, the United States), but also in the sending countries, where conditions at the time of departure matter: famine (Ireland, 1845–49); political regimes (USSR, 1980s; Cuba); ethnic wars (Serbia, 1990s); wars among nations (US and Japan, World War II); genocide (Rwanda); or a positive relationship (UK and most Commonwealth nations). While the existing conditions at the time determine the status of the new immigrant (landowner, refugee, guest, undocumented immigrant), the patterns of mobility usually do not. Currently, personal mobility is more likely than ever before, even for young adults and children traveling alone. The WAYF interviews provide examples of the high likelihood and the complexity of mobility, creating opportunities to develop new language for the already existing practice of mobility. The WAYF interviews with people who have experienced war or other forms of conflict (e.g., apartheid in South Africa, South Sudan, Eritrea) in their countries all touch on the fact that, although the interviewees did not want to leave, staying was not an option. The opportunity to move to a place where they could attend school, work, and even worship without restrictions was one that they could not pass up. Others move because of economic hardship or unemployment. The status at arrival makes a difference not only legally—a refugee is treated differently from an undocumented immigrant—but also in how people see themselves as part of society. Those who are able to become citizens, or chose to do so because their previous conditions did not afford them the same rights, often perceive and experience their new life in the United States as the fulfillment of a dream. Those who come from countries where the benefits of citizenship are similar to those in the United States, and did not experience any struggles back home (e.g., in developed countries such as Australia and Germany) seem to maintain an attachment to both places, and do not feel the urgency to apply for US citizenship. A rhetorical renovation of immigration needs imagination to connect immigrants to their potential role as citizens. The leap from one’s preconception of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 207

8/5/15 2:04 PM

208

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

immigrants to the vision of them as citizens (similar to those who already belong to that category) happens through the ability to return to a common past of mobility and the willingness to share current stories as present examples of mobility. This task is easily imagined, as the principles of equality, respect for human rights, and acceptance of difference are powerful commonplaces, or topoi. But to return to what one knows to be right is often more difficult when policies and laws that put those principles into practice potentially realize “sameness.” Imagination remains associated with the creative, innovative ability to believe in an idealistic future, but it is seldom taken seriously in political and social contexts, where visions are tested and brought to life. Imagination is necessary for a rhetorical repositioning of citizens and noncitizens as similar, based on the premise that immigration is about histories of movement. The way to renovate discourses of immigration is through a repositioning of both citizens and immigrants. As a rhetorical process, a repositioning involves both a move back to the past and a push forward to the present reality of mobility for millions of people who reside in a place away from their origin. Repositioning is rooted in memory and invention. The WAYF interviews highlight the similarities in stories of mobility and recount how citizens and immigrants arrived where they are now: a US citizen, whose family came with a land permit from a king in England, and an undocumented resident from Mexico, who is now fighting for his opportunity to stay, share a history of parents who wanted a better future for their children, risking everything to make it happen. These stories of mobility prompt citizens to imagine personal stories of struggle, sacrifice, risk, and the excitement of moving toward the unknown in order to identify with what immigrants experience. This repositioning brings citizens back to their past to understand and identify with the space immigrants currently occupy. The repositioning of citizens and immigrants also involves reorienting each group toward the other. This horizontal move is rooted in identification, the ability to imagine oneself as more like another person than different. The connectivity between old and new, history and change, tradition and innovation can develop through two moves at the basis of rhetoric: identification, especially what Kenneth Burke calls consubstantiality, and imagination, the ability to generate new ideas that motivate interlocutors to take a risk and be persuaded to pursue the “unknown.” The content of an interview with a student from Afghanistan may seem unimaginable to most US citizens. He and his brother worked as children to support their family until their father decided to send them to the United States. He made the decision to lose his

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 208

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

209

sons’ contribution to the family’s income to allow them to receive an education and escape the cycle of poverty. This student tells a unique story of child labor, but his own experience as an immigrant to the United States is similar to that of other students, who move for a better education and decide to stay for permanent professions. His story of leaving a family behind to escape the reality of war may not resonate with others who have only known peace, but the notion of pursuing an education and preparing for a career is similar to that of a naturalized citizen, a political science professor who moved to the United States, his wife’s native county, so that their son could grow up in the United States. The identification between citizens and noncitizens, old and new stories of mobility, happens through the rhetorical act of imagining. Only a vivid imagination can reposition citizens and immigrants in the same place. Echoing past concepts like Marcuse’s notion of phantasy, Vico’s ingenium, Longinus’s phantasia, and Aristotle’s enargeia, Burke reminds us of the power of vivid images that writers and rhetoricians create to convince their audiences of the “reality and truth” of their assertions. For Burke, imagination in rhetoric does not only attempt to astound the listeners, but it also makes them “believe in the ‘reality’ of things which we may not otherwise believe at all.” Burke connects imagination to movement and attributes great powers to the ability to visualize images that one perceives as either good or bad and that ultimately move people to action. Imagination is, for Burke, connected to the unconscious “awareness of distinction and discriminations not yet reduced to the systematic order of a filing system.” This is the place, like rhetorical memory, where one stores multiple images, sensations, and other unknown, confusing, yet powerful elements of knowledge until one finds a connection between what we don’t know yet and what our imagination discovers. Horizontally repositioning what is considered “different” and “other” about immigrants requires a return to the past not only to find similarities but to acknowledge differences. For Burke, identification and division go together, because “identification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division.” He adds that “identification is compensatory to division,” and that “if men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity.” In recent discourses of immigration, including legislation in Arizona and other states, the idea of unity with the “common enemy” seems unthinkable. The stereotypical immigrant, often imagined as Mexican, male, possibly committing crimes and polluting the otherwise clean environment, becomes what Burke calls a scapegoat for economic, social,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 209

8/5/15 2:04 PM

210

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

political discontent. The notion of repositioning citizens who may see “immigrants” as distant and unknown to seeing them instead as “like them” seems to be lost in discriminatory and divisive policies. Burke argues that division is the “ironic counterpart” of identification; it is exactly because people are different that a rhetorical exercise in imagination allows the possibility of unity. The WAYF interviews highlight a kairotic unity in narratives of movement across borders and regions, across time and space. Students from rural areas, especially one from an economically depressed county in North Carolina and another from a religious community in Texas, discuss their experience of moving to a new environment. Just like immigrants who come to the United States and talk about the feeling of belonging (or not belonging) to two cultures and traditions, the students from rural areas discuss adjusting to their new life, still maintaining a connection to “home.” A professor who has lived in four different countries (the Netherlands, Egypt, Indonesia, and the United States) and relates to all of them as home, speaks about the differences in language, culture, and food, explicating how her transition across space and time has enriched who she is. Her personal story overlaps with historical, political, and economic differences among the four countries, connecting her own movement to her homeland’s past of colonialism; she connects her current home in the United States to the religion of Egypt and Indonesia, making her a great example of the influence of time and place on her own mobility. Numerous WAYF interviews address the theme of multiplicity of habits and ideas and how people who move have to find ways to reconcile them, just like immigrants do.

Move 2: Technological Spaces The renovation of immigration as histories of mobility is not only related to time but is a product of a modern context. Mobility has always been connected to technological advancements and scientific innovation: from the study of the human body and vascular circulation, to boats, trains, airplanes, and other means of transportation that allowed people to move fast. The latest modern turn in mobility is digital, through online presence and video and audio technology that allows people not just to move faster but to be in more than one place immediately, simultaneously. The WAYF Project embraces this new technology with online video interviews that bring people “there” even when they are not physically present. The WAYF interviews also invite users to “go visiting”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 210

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

211

and explore the participants’ places of origin as they see and hear sound bites, narbs (narrative bits), from their homes. This part of the technological renovation of immigration as histories of mobility is rooted in imagination and alacrity, the quickness of thought necessary to imagine anything and fill that idea with an image, a face, a personal story from the WAYF interviewees. This multiplicity of images, sounds, ideas, customs, beliefs, practices, even languages that usually position citizens and noncitizens apart is also rooted in imagination: people find new words to describe old traditions, and the language they attach to their own practices separates them from others who may have shared similar cultural practices. Italo Calvino, an Italian thinker who wrote about the importance of creating and remembering, starts from the Italian vago (root of “vagueness” and “vagabond”), denoting the sense of wondering and wandering, movement, mutability “associated both with uncertainty and indefiniteness and with gratefulness and pleasure.” Calvino cites Giacomo Leopardi, an Italian poet, as he observes multiplicity in the faculty of imagination. In the Zibaldone, Leopardi beautifully describes the pleasure of watching the vastness of the sky, clouds, and stars because of their variety; he expresses the uncertainty derived from the inability to see landscapes in their entirety. The imagination provides the pleasure of visualizing what we cannot see, what is beyond us; the sensation, for Leopardi, is not as intense if we lie down so that we see only the sky, disconnected from the earth. The unknown is a root of both pleasure and fear, which speaks to the fundamental division between citizens and noncitizens. The current views on immigration, and the political discourses that describe citizens and noncitizens as different, are rooted in the fear of the unknown and the pleasure associated with the hierarchies that Burke argued are inherent to being human. Citizens are placed on a higher level than noncitizens in terms of rights, benefits, and opportunities. A graduate student from Trinidad and Tobago and a student from Pakistan discuss how they at times feel like they do not belong either in the United States or back in their countries because of this feeling of being “unlike” others. This practical division generates a limited understanding of the relationship between citizens and noncitizens, based on the lack of rights or the fear of losing them; the ability to imagine both groups as alike vanishes as higher border walls and stricter policies rise. As a mode of thought, imagination retains the potential of creating new images, in this case for citizens and immigrants as similar, based on what Calvino describes as a “repertory of what is potential, what is hypothetical, of what does not exist and has

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 211

8/5/15 2:04 PM

212

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

never existed, and perhaps will never exist but might have existed.” For the poet, and sometimes even for the scientist, and of course for the rhetorician, imagination is the quickest way to select from the multiple forms of the possible and the impossible. As Calvino suggests, imagination is a “kind of electronic machine that takes account of all possible combinations and chooses the ones that are appropriate to a particular purpose,” or maybe just the most “interesting, pleasing, or amusing.” The act of the imagination must be quick. Calvino believes “speed of mind” and economy of expression are essential to describing what one sees and what others must visualize immediately, almost simultaneously, when they confront the characters, arguments, and stories in literature. Just as it is in rhetoric, “mental speed” is at the root of thinking. This ability to think and imagine means “quickness, agility in reasoning, economy in argument,” through “the use of imaginative examples.” Multiplicity in imagination is multiplicity of emotions and rapidity of connections. Even Galileo thought that discourse was linked to reasoning, and his “comparison of reasoning with racing” demonstrates the importance of imagining a new understanding of immigration and the immediate availability of stories that encourage a link between citizens and noncitizens. This immediacy is made possible through the technology of a video, with images, pictures from the participants’ families, maps, and sounds such as steel drums and traditional music. The WAYF interviews are supposed to take audiences back to the place where the people are from and evoke images from their own past, their own home. A naturalized US citizen, one of the lost boys of Sudan, and a refugee from Eritrea describe conditions that may be hard to imagine for American audiences, who are used to the comforts of home and personal safety. Their not-so-everyday stories, however, have recognizable elements, as the brutality of war is also a narrative from an educated lawyer who now has a stable job; the surreal daily life of a refugee camp is also a narrative of family reunification and hopes for a safer future. The urgency of a renovation of citizenship as histories of mobility based on similarities between citizens and noncitizens requires both groups to imagine immediately, as a fast response to what is happening now. New patterns of mobility challenge the traditional way of thinking about borders. For Calvino, people must always consider the “many rhythms” of life and address the urgent need for discourse with “patient and meticulous adjustments and an intuition so instantaneous that, when formulated, it acquires the finality of something that could have never been otherwise.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 212

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

213

Move 3: Crowd Learning for a Shared Story of Mob-ility The WAYF Project combines two elements of invention, creation and discovery. The WAYF interviews are a new way to tell the stories, edited technically in order to compel audiences to listen and identify with an occurrence of mobility. The WAYF interviews are also an opportunity to discover that one’s experience of movement is similar to those of others who may have come before or after. This discovery encourages the repositioning of citizens and noncitizens horizontally, as more alike than different. The WAYF interviews demonstrate that a renovation of immigration as histories of movement is not only about the personal stories but about what Burke calls the agent and the agency. Who tells the stories, as well as who does not, and the means by which they share their experience position them in a unique time (move 1) with unique technology (move 2). The WAYF interviewees are part of a new process of mob-ility, crowd learning, peer-to-peer communication, as they become the experts not only of their own stories but also of their own regions and nations. This new mob-ility repositions citizens and noncitizens horizontally as equally credible sources of information, bringing the “mob” back into mobility. A rhetorical definition of immigration as histories of mobility—not just one history, and not just as single stories—allows a symphony of voices together in a digital space where the hierarchy of nationalities and borders is suspended. The crowd-learning aspect of the WAYF interviews is not unique. The concepts of crowd sourcing, peer-to-peer funding, lending, and sharing, have been growing successfully mostly because they give agency to technology users, individuals who can contribute according to their resources. Examples include intellectual crowd sourcing such as Wikipedia and the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes, as well as financial microlending organizations such as Kiva. In discourses of immigration, projects such as Define American and New Diaspora are similar to the WAYF Project: they use multiple short videos, pictures, comments, and blog entries to teach and learn about the topic of immigration from personal experiences, stories, eyewitnesses, and experts. Not even the neologism “mob-ility” is new: mobility evokes the movement of the masses, the mob. But the renovation of immigration as histories of mobility is an invitation to take the multiplicity of the WAYF interviews as evidence that a rhetorical understanding of immigration is enriched by a large pool of voices, all of whom speak as different and unique. For rhetorical scholars, immigration as histories of mobility provides not only artifacts; the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 213

8/5/15 2:04 PM

214

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

WAYF interviews advance an innovative study of the process of mob-ility as a rich form of communication. All WAYF participants have moved—from country to country, from region to region, or from rural to urban environments—and everyone has at least one reason in common: new, better, more opportunities, usually in employment and education; reunification, or staying where a loved one lives; escape from oppressive and at times dangerous social and economic conditions. These reasons capture almost every story of mobility. Examples include the story of a North Carolina resident whose ancestor was a French nobleman, who originally came to the United States to collect a debt and then stayed after he fell in love with the town of Richmond, Virginia. Another interviewee explains a love for the land where her family has been for eight generations, and the surprise she first experienced when she discovered that others had moved to multiple cities and regions. After she moved to college, the sense of missing home while developing a new family made her reflect on the reasons why people move away, even from the best places one could imagine. Several students discuss the reasons that made them move across regions and continents to pursue a dream, only to hurry back to their families and homes. Temporary and permanent mobility are different, and several interviewees attest that what started as a plan to be away from home for a limited time became the beginning of a life somewhere other than where they were born. A professor from Germany who came to study and remained after marrying, a teacher from Pennsylvania who found a new home in North Carolina, a military daughter who now calls Texas her home—all recount the almost accidental permanence of their move, often tied to a loved one who settled. The stories serve as examples of the fact that a temporal move has the possibility to become permanent. Others, however, stress that mobility to the United States is indeed a phase, a brief moment in their lives before they return home. Students from Costa Rica, China, and Mexico share their love for their host country but reaffirm their commitment to return home as soon as their studies allow, with the intention of using their newly acquired skills to work back home, not in the United States. Citizens and noncitizens belong to more than one place, home, culture, and habit. The WAYF interviews encourage a discussion of movement, assuming that all the people interviewed have indeed moved. The interviews, however, include citizens and residents whose families have not moved in decades or centuries; still, the interviewees have a sense of connection to both their “original” home and the not-so-new permanent residence. For more recent

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 214

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

215

immigrants, this sense of belonging, or not belonging, to multiple places is even more apparent. Many participants—students from poor rural areas in the United States and across the world and highly educated faculty who have studied and worked in multiple places—describe themselves as “in between” places, countries, regions, and homes. This sense of having multiple connections and a complex sense of belonging is one of the most striking aspects of the interviews, especially when compared to past immigrants, who were strongly encouraged, even forced, to relinquish all ties to their countries of origin. Mob-ility today, as it appears in the WAYF interviews, does not translate to loyalty to only one place, especially if the people are not “done” moving (e.g., students still planning to find a job elsewhere). The risk in looking for similarities among histories of mobility, specifically as part of the metanarrative of the United States as a nation of immigrants, is that important distinctions may be overlooked. Citizens and noncitizens, long-term residents and newly arrived migrants, do not have the same experience, and time and space, as well as origin, do matter. Today, a citizen of the UK and a citizen of Iran, even if they shared characteristics such as age, education, and social class, would not be treated equally in the United States. Moreover, what Said, Honig, and others have called the risk of romanticizing the “other,” a cultural fascination with exotic locations and traditions, resonates with histories of colonization. Arguments against both the fetishization of the “other” and the celebration of the “normal” story are important, as they highlight the risk of letting the few speak for the many. The very study of mobility risks becoming about the “remote control” of people by governments: hegemonic assertions of national power through documents such as passports, visas, and “legitimate means of movement.” A renovation of immigration as histories of mobility, however, is an opening for multiple first-person stories. While some stories may confirm the hegemonic definition of the “citizen” and, by default, the noncitizen, none of the WAYF interviews is labeled, defined, or organized on the basis of differences such as geography or immigration status. Features such as gender, race, and origin are apparent in the faces, names, and countries of origin that are identified in the WAYF interviews and the interactive map, but the website does not encourage a “correct” approach to viewing and interpreting the stories. In addition, several stories do not reinforce the narrative of the American Dream or the unidirectional nature of movement to the United States. While stories such as those of a student from Afghanistan and a refugee from Eritrea confirm the familiar rags-to-riches trajectory, there are other examples of

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 215

8/5/15 2:04 PM

216

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

immigrants who arrived in the United States without a history of struggle and with no intention of settling. These stories demonstrate what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls the “danger of a single story,” the risk of defining people as if they only had one dimension to their experience. The WAYF interviews show that a story of immigration is irreducible to one narrative. Even as similarities emerge in the stories across time, each interview reveals the complexity of one person’s unique history of mobility. The WAYF website is intentionally not organized according to regions or nations of origin. The interviews are listed randomly, at times in the order of dates of production but also intentionally disorganized. The forty-nine stories represent twenty-four females and twenty-five males; twenty-five Wake Forest University students (undergraduate and graduate); four international high school students; twelve community members not affiliated with WFU; and seven faculty members/staff. Twenty-six distinct nationalities are represented, including thirty-one American citizens, nine of whom have dual nationalities, four as naturalized citizens. Alternate methods of organization might have been based on immigration status (green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented permanent residents), age (which ranges from college students to retirees), language skills (bilingual, trilingual), profession, or annual income. The idea is that while the metadata about the WAYF interviews reveal a bit about the people who share their stories, as well as those who are not yet represented (fifty WAYF interviews are either in postproduction or scheduled for 2015–16), all the stories support a repositioning of citizens and noncitizens horizontally, sharing a common mob-ility. The multiplicity, quickness, and horizontal approach of the WAYF interviews not only shuffle the way users experience various histories of mobility but also challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions about the unidirectionality of movement. Several interviewees, including a student from Costa Rica, do not paint a picture of the United States as the telos of immigration. They are here to study, gain the skills they need, and then return “home.” While the experiences of temporary workers and students are not unique, these and other stories question the ideal of a “path to citizenship.” A teacher from Australia explicitly discusses his lack of interest in becoming a US citizen. Some WAYF interviewees, including a refugee from Sudan, do paint the ideal picture of coming here and “making it,” but others stress that being here is not enough; the “path” is about not just the legal right to stay but the ability and freedom to move, drive, study, and work. The WAYF interviews solidify the definition of, and provide evidence for, immigration as histories of mobility,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 216

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

217

creating a positive valence of mobility, moving from what Cresswell has called a sedentarist metaphysics to a nomadic metaphysics. The reasons and conditions for mob-ility frame the repositioning of citizens and noncitizens as we remember and discover similar stories of movement. Even with the recent changes in mobility trends—a reverse wave of immigration back to traditional sending countries such as Mexico and India may be attributed to economic conditions that limit jobs sought by migrants— the reasons why people move, how and when they leave, and the connections they make remain similar to those of people who came before them. The WAYF interviews provide a glimpse into a lifetime that is about much more than a history of movement. The questions encourage participants to discuss their own mobility, as the WAYF Project is based on the premise that both citizens and noncitizens have moved. The interviews, however, comprise stories told as first-person narratives. All participants choose to share bits of information about their own past and culture, and the fact that each interview presents only one point of view encourages viewers to listen and learn specifically about that person. The interviews encourage the understanding of each story for its unique characteristics, culture, and location, and while this discussion of the WAYF interviews focuses on the similarities that emerge in the collection, the WAYF Project is based on listening to every story on its own terms.

Conclusion Calvino retells Kafka’s story about an empty bucket: “the fuller it is, the less it will be able to fly.” The bucket metaphor recalls the notion of scene-act ratio that Burke explores in the opening chapter of his Grammar of Motives. Burke outlines the five elements of his pentad and tells us that we are agents, actors who perform an act in a scene that contains us and limits our possibilities, so that our agency is constrained by the scene, setting the boundaries of our actions. The scene is the container and the act is what is contained, so that we are agents able to shape the environment that controls us. The symbolism of Calvino’s bucket and Burke’s container reminds us that less is more when it comes to imagination. Both recognize imagination for its creative potential, which for Aristotle, Burke writes, “stood between sensation and intellect.” But imagination is more powerful than sensation because, for Burke, “imagination does not require the presence of the thing imagined,” and it can lead to

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 217

8/5/15 2:04 PM

218

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

a reorganization of the ideas that amount to what we know and feel, “taking them apart and imagining them in new combinations.” The process of searching for that forever-gone connection to another person remains central to the study of rhetoric. We strive to connect with others who remind us of ourselves, and we are weary of those who are different, speak a different language, or come from a distant land. Similarities, however, can be apparent even in the most disparate situations, and rhetoric is the tool that helps us find connections when none appear. Specifically, when referring to immigrants as “others,” the ability to find similarities and the goal of identification through an immediate overlap of stories, habits, and practices are essential to a repositioning of citizens and noncitizens as rhetorically close. Memory is what drives our willingness to connect to others, based on what we know is the possibility of a reunion. But memory is only the beginning. Invention allows our imagination to see what has not happened before, what is new and unlike the past. A renovation of the discourses around immigration as histories of mobility needs both; citizens and noncitizens may thus be repositioned not merely as people who share a story of mobility but as people who can imagine new ways to live together. I have argued elsewhere that rhetorical studies of citizenship have the opportunity to create new language, introducing new metaphors for what is already happening. In this chapter, I have developed three “movements” to renovate immigration as histories of mobility, repositioning citizens and noncitizens horizontally, mapping stories through and across time and technology. This sequence facilitates nuanced ways to study rhetorics of immigration. The focus on commonalities need not erase differences, but it may invite a new definition of who is, and who is not, a citizen. Histories of mobility such as the WAYF Project invite us to reposition all stories as related to mob-ility. note s 1. Padmananda Rama, “Family Roots Matter, If You’re a GOP Convention Speaker,” NPR, August 30, 2012, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/29/160278852/family-roots -matter-if-youre-a-gop-convention-speaker. 2. See Alessandra Beasley Von Burg, “Caught Between History and Imagination: Vico’s Ingenium for a Rhetorical Renovation of Citizenship,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43, no. 1 (2010): 26–53. Renovation, from the Latin renovare, maintains a link to foundational and familiar principles but adds an innovative (novus, new) element. The notion of renovation links the rhetorical canons of invention, to create something new, and memory, to remember what one already knows. This concept stems from Giambattista Vico’s theory of ingenium, defined as the ability to find similarities in what seems different, and the capacity “to perceive the analogies

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 218

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

219

existing between matters lying far apart and, apparently, most dissimilar.” Vico, On the Study Methods of Our Time, trans. Elio Gianturco (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 24. As a foundation of renovation, ingenium is closely related to imagination and the ability to create innovative ideas that become persuasive when they resonate with the familiar. Ingenium focuses on a return to what one knows well to make sense of what one does not yet understand, but renovation also explains how what one knows and what one imagines must always remain connected. Renovation blends the rhetorical canons of invention and memory. Renovation connects what one knows well with what one does not yet understand. Citizens remember what they already know as citizenship and expand their understanding of it to include noncitizens, generating a definition of citizenship that is new but familiar. Just like a house renovation, the old notion of citizenship is not completely eliminated; it is expanded and reimagined. Renovation keeps the structure and its function intact (a kitchen is still the place for cooking and eating, and citizenship is still the way in which we participate and contribute to our community), but it improves whatever was there before, unearthing its potential. Renovation, unlike a complete change, maintains the best elements of what was there and builds upon them in ways we may never have imagined (the kitchen still has Grandma’s sink, and citizenship is still about civic practices and relationship to others). 3. The Where Are You From? Project collects interviews, narratives, examples, and experiences of migration and mobility from students, faculty, and staff at Wake Forest University and from legal permanent residents, green card holders, and foreign-born naturalized citizens, as well as from undocumented residents, refugees, and US citizens in Winston-Salem, High Point, and Greensboro, North Carolina, and the surrounding community. The interviews are available in edited format on the WAYF website (http://whereareyoufromproject.org/). 4. Walter Fisher, “Narration as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22. 5. I considered the full content of the interviews as evidence. 6. See Nancy Green and François Weil, eds., Citizenship and Those Who Leave (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007). 7. Michael McAuliff, “Immigration Bill: Dreamers Weep, Cheer as Senate Votes to End Lives of Fear,” Huffington Post, June 27, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/ immigration-bill-dreamers_n_3513054.html. 8. See Leroy G. Dorsey and Rachel M. Harlow, “ ‘We Want Americans Pure and Simple’: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 6 (2003): 55–78; see also Jane Addams, Twenty Years at Hull House (New York: Signet Classics, 1961). 9. See Alessandra Beasley Von Burg, “Stochastic Citizenship and the Rhetoric of Mobility,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 45, no. 4 (2012): 351–75. 10. See Green and Weil, Citizenship and Those Who Leave. 11. See Ian Goldin, Geoff rey Cameron, and Meera Balarajan, eds., Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012). In the spring and summer of 2014, the United States was the destination for thousands of unaccompanied minors, creating an urgent need to deal with the increase in these particular narratives of mobility. 12. Aristotle, On Rhetoric, trans. George A. Kennedy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 13. See Martha Nussbaum, Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995). 14. Kenneth Burke believes that identification and consubstantiality demonstrate the real function of rhetoric through the use of language as “a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols.” Burke, On Symbols and Society, ed. Joseph Gusfield (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 188. See also Nussbaum, Poetic Justice.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 219

8/5/15 2:04 PM

220

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

15. Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 79. 16. Ibid., 80. 17. Ibid., 82. 18. Burke, On Symbols and Society, 181–82. 19. See J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. 20. Burke, On Symbols and Society, 183. 21. See Timothy Cresswell, On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World (New York: Routledge, 2006). 22. See Hannah Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). 23. See Ananda Mitra, narbs, http://www.narbs.info/, accessed June 27, 2013. 24. See Italo Calvino, Six Memos for the Next Millennium (New York: Vintage International, 1993), 57. See also Calvino, The Uses of Literature, trans. Patrick Creagh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986). 25. Calvino, Six Memos, 61–62. 26. Leopardi, who in his famous poem “L’Infinito” imagines “infinite space and feels pleasure and fear together” (quoted in Calvino, Six Memos, 61–62), is for Calvino the poet who imagines endless pleasure and creates an illusion of infinite space, capturing the sweet numbness of drowning in a sea of uncertainly (“E il naufragar m’e’ dolce in questo mare,” one of the most beautiful and famous Italian quotations and one that defeats all attempts at translation). 27. Calvino, Six Memos, 91. 28. Ibid., 91. 29. Ibid., 39. 30. Ibid., 35. 31. Ibid., 43–45. 32. Ibid., 45. 33. Ibid., 54. 34. See Janet Atwill and Janice M. Lauer, Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2002). 35. See Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, “The Danger of a Single Story,” TEDGlobal, 2009, http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. 36. Cresswell, On the Move, 20. 37. The interviews focus on a limited sample based on proximity. Most participants are associated with Wake Forest University and the community surrounding Winston-Salem. North Carolina’s immigrant populations are among the fastest growing in the United States: the state has about 650,000 foreign-born residents, 6.8 percent of the population (US Census), and about 325,000 illegal immigrants, including about 51,000 youths brought here by their parents. While North Carolina is an interesting state for the study of immigration, the WAYF Project eventually aims to include interviews with citizens and noncitizens throughout the United States. 38. See Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Random House, 1979); and Bonnie Honig, Democracy and the Foreigner (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). 39. See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1988), 271–313; and Linda Alcoff, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique 20 (Winter 1991–92): 5–32. 40. Cresswell, On the Move, 185. See also John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 220

8/5/15 2:04 PM

immigration as histories of mob-ility

|

221

41. Cresswell, On the Move, 21. 42. Calvino, Six Memos, 29. 43. Burke, Rhetoric of Motives, 78. 44. Ibid., 79.

bibl io gr a ph y Addams, Jane. Twenty Years at Hull House. New York: Signet Classics, 1961. Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TEDGlobal, 2009. http://www .ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20 (Winter 1991–92): 5–32. Arendt, Hannah. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Edited by Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Translated by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Atwill, Janet, and Janice M. Lauer. Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2002. Beasley Von Burg, Alessandra. “Caught Between History and Imagination: Vico’s Ingenium for a Rhetorical Renovation of Citizenship.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43, no. 1 (2010): 26–53. ———. “Stochastic Citizenship and the Rhetoric of Mobility.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 45, no. 4 (2012): 351–75. Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Edited by Joseph Gusfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. ———. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. Calvino, Italo. Six Memos for the Next Millennium. New York: Vintage International, 1993. ———. The Uses of Literature. Translated by Patrick Creagh. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. Cresswell, Timothy. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York: Routledge, 2006. Dorsey, Leroy G., and Rachel M. Harlow. “‘We Want Americans Pure and Simple’: Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 6 (2003): 55–78. Fisher, Walter. “Narration as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22. Goldin, Ian, Geoff rey Cameron, and Meera Balarajan, eds. Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Green, Nancy, and François Weil, eds. Citizenship and Those Who Leave. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007. Honig, Bonnie. Democracy and the Foreigner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. McAuliff, Michael. “Immigration Bill: Dreamers Weep, Cheer as Senate Votes to End Lives of Fear.” Huffington Post, June 27, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/ immigration-bill-dreamers_n_3513054.html. Mitra, Ananda. narbs. http://www.narbs.info/. Accessed June 27, 2013. Nussbaum, Martha. Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 221

8/5/15 2:04 PM

222

|

(hi)stories of exclusion

Padmananda, Rama. “Family Roots Matter, If You’re a GOP Convention Speaker.” NPR, August 30, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/29/160278852/family -roots-matter-if-youre-a-gop-convention-speaker. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Random House, 1979. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271–313. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1988. Torpey, John. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Vico, Giambattista. On the Study Methods of Our Time. Translated by Elio Gianturco. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 222

8/5/15 2:04 PM

10

battling identity warfare on the imagined us/méxico border Performing Migrant Alien in Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles Michael Lechuga

Globally, film, television, and gaming media have invoked extraterrestrial fictional discourse, contributing to the global rhetorical condition of the migrant alien. To find a connection between extraterrestrials and migration in the North American context, one need look no further than the term alien itself. Otherness connected to alien identities is common in public discussions of Latina/o communities. Scholars argue that Latina/o communities are often deemed cultural outsiders to the US citizenry. In the case of both extraterrestrials and migrants, the term refers to an outsider; more recently, it has become pregnant with a number of political and social implications. Charles Ramírez Berg argues that the first major emergence of extraterrestrial films coincided with the spike in migration from Cuba and México in the 1950s and early 1960s. In the middle of the twentieth century, Mexican migrants were blamed for high unemployment numbers, although most were invited to the United States through the Bracero (strong-arm) program to fi ll the job vacancies of soldiers fighting in Europe during World Wars I and II. Hollywood, situated along the US/México border, has become the stage on which and agent by which public attitudes toward aliens play out for US American fi lmgoers. In this chapter, I turn to critical cultural studies on affect to develop a rhetorical frame of identification that makes sense of both the negative attitudes toward and the harsh subjection of migrants crossing the US/México border. In particular, I am interested in exploring how today’s moviegoing audiences relate to nationalistic performances of alien eradication that emerge analogously in popular extraterrestrial-invasion films and in the anti-immigrant rhetoric circulating through state and federal legal discourses. This chapter

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 225

8/5/15 2:04 PM

226

|

affect and media imagery

focuses on filmic constructions of alien Others as monstrous, frightening, and anxiety-inducing, and the subsequent measures often taken by nationalistic US Americans to militarize against alien invasions. This chapter also considers the role of Hollywood, operating in the heart of the borderland, which simultaneously responds and contributes to the dehumanizing of aliens in US statehood and citizenship. However, rather than just a study of anti-immigrant expression in legislation and film through a rhetorical lens, this chapter asks readers to evaluate the relationship between aliens and migrants beyond the discursive. It asks, in other words, how do extraterrestrial-invasion films attune viewers to visual and aural affects that manifest as feelings of fear and anxiety toward aliens, while conjuring a feeling of national pride in defending against their invasion? Combining a study of affect with a rhetorical critique, the chapter examines how identification and affect work together to form moviegoers’ attitudes toward aliens, shaping both the actual and the imagined borderland of acceptance and rejection. The physical borderland—the US/México border—serves as “the key locus of militarization of law enforcement in the U.S.” The current militarization of the border marks a shift in policy that once welcomed the transnational movement of bodies and goods across it. As the role of the military in the lives of individuals living along that border grows—in México and in the United States—so, too, does the anxiety created by the military complex’s destabilization of border communities’ routines along the border. Collaboration between the US military (federal security) and US Border Patrol (local enforcement) is at its strongest since the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. An aggressive attitude has been adopted by federal and state governments, resulting in the expansion of current state and federal programs, employing unmanned aerial vehicles (Predator drones) to monitor the US/México border. In addition to governmental control, the (self-)deployment of minutemen—a volunteer vigilante group consisting largely of Vietnam veterans—to the US/ México border shows how citizens have adopted an aggressive attitude toward migrants. I am particularly interested in how public attitudes in political discourses mimic those in films like Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles. There is an assumption that the alien is an invader and poses an imminent threat to US Americans. Contemporary, widely distributed extraterrestrial films often utilize an imagined space where the US/México border is host to the extraterrestrial invasion and to the subsequent counterattack by the US military. The films are closely linked; Battle: Los Angeles picks up where Inde-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 226

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

227

pendence Day leaves off—in the midst of an escalating battle between the US military and violent alien invaders over the desert territories in the southwestern United States. While the implications of the reduction of the extraterrestrial alien seem removed from the plight of today’s border-crossing migrant, “social confl icts are transported into the cultural system, where the hegemonic process frames them, form and content both.” They are forced “into compatibility with dominant systems of meaning.” In my case study, there is an analogous relationship between extraterrestrials and migrants in fi lm. What is startling about alien-invasion fi lms in the last fi fteen years is their distorted perception of the alien body, and how it easily moves between the real space of the US/México borderland and the imagined space of Hollywood blockbusters. Ramírez Berg warns against distortion, or the representation by which the alien migrant is so vastly dehumanized that any characteristics can be attributed to her or him. I argue that this distortion is a result of a process of affective conditioning of those along the US/México border to reject the invasive alien, reshaping the borderland as a space of inclusion for (pro-military) US citizens and a place of violent exclusion for those perceived as alien. This chapter makes sense of how narratives about and affects attached to aliens—both extraterrestrials and migrants—are transported between the imagined space of Hollywood film and the real spaces of the US/México borderland by those writing, producing, and watching extraterrestrial-invasion films. First, I survey the imagined border space by charting alienhood and belonging in Chicana/o critical studies and contemporary popular film. Then I expand Ramírez Berg’s notion of distortion to describe the relationship between production of alienhood in filmic borderlands and in the political discourses that shape the physical US/México border. I ground this study in a discussion of affect and consider how the affective attributes attached to aliens in film might contribute to attuning moviegoers to reject migrants and support the militarized reshaping of the physical borderland. I then explore how a critical lens of identification and affect sheds light on distortion in two films—Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles. I discuss the implications of the films’ contributions to shaping the borderland as a battleground. This chapter concludes by considering the consequences of distortion and advocating for reimagining the US/México borderland as unoccupied by nationalism or militarism.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 227

8/5/15 2:04 PM

228

|

affect and media imagery

Border as Imagined Space Ramírez Berg calls attention to Hollywood’s participation in the production of films depicting issues along the US/México border. This depiction, he argues, results in narratives implicating the southwestern border of the United States as the scene in which the tensions and fears of those living along the border manifest into cinematic expression. Hollywood utilizes its geographic position along the border to re-create narratives incorporating feelings of anxiety, fear, and pride associated with the intensities of border life. I suggest that these feelings emerge in film narratives in particular because film is able to transport the affective intensities of border experiences into dominant cultural systems of meaning. Hollywood film communicates identities and actions of agents and actors along the physical border in and out of the cultural systems of citizenship, nationalism, and security. In this section, I chart the terrain of an imagined border space. I describe how it is continually reshaped and how the shape of that space affects bodies along the actual US/México border. While Hollywood may be the most recognizable stage for the performances of migration along the border, the expression of the imagined border space emerges out of Chicana/o literature. Most notably, Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza led scholarship on an expedition through the imagined and real space of the US/México border. For Anzaldúa and others deeply rooted in the Chicana/o movement, identities along the border are embedded in a rich cultural tradition of mysticism (mythicism) known as Aztlán. Anzaldúa extended the work of rhetors like Corky Gonzales, who used Aztlán as a space of connection and empowerment in the Chicana/o movement. Aztlán signifies a geographic, original Mexico in the US American Southwest, prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Anzaldúa’s Aztlán becomes that imagined space where those who are most alienated can find landscapes of possibility. In Aztlán, those living along the border can become activists for those Americans of Mexican descent who see themselves as neither American nor Mexican, but as somewhere in between. Aztlán is shaped by an emphasis on justice embedded in cultural memory—imagining a borderland that is free of nationalistic, patriarchal, and class dominance. For many, exploration of this space becomes essential to building a critical, theoretical voice. Saldívar suggests a “remapping” of the borderland in order to understand the narrative elements creating border identity. “ ‘Aztlán’ goes a long way toward dramatizing both the geopolitical and cultural symbolic economies,” implying the creation of a “heterotopic space where documented

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 228

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

229

and undocumented subjects can coexist.” While citizenship, economics, or politics may limit Latinas/os from moving through particular physical spaces, the imagined space of Aztlán offers sanctuary. Guillermo Gómez-Peña refers to this space as a “conceptual territory” in which his performance of border and Other identities can emerge. When utilized properly, this space bridges performers and audiences through the mode of conceptual invention. GómezPeña, forced to forge this space after “full citizenship [was] denied to [him] by both countries . . . [,] invented [his] own country,” situated between the United States and México. Holling and Calafell argue that the border space becomes a place for Chicanas/os to exorcise their ills related to colonialism. Flores examines this imagined space in the work of Chicana feminists who not only shape the space for their own renewal and safety but also shape it as a place from which to build coalitions with other contested gendered and classed communities. While the imagined space of the border has been a liberating space to historically marginalized voices and experiences, however, its ability to amplify those voices and experiences is currently threatened. Many wish to reoccupy the space as a militarized zone of conflict over belonging. Today’s popular films have co-opted the imagined border space and belligerently divvied it up along nationalist lines. Like much of the physical borderland in the last two centuries, today’s imagined border is abuzz with military maneuvers and alarming alien invaders; tension builds over a looming battle for disputed territory. The territory is occupied by those who have oppositional interests to Aztlán—those who claim the imagined border as a homogeneous space of US citizenship. The emergence and popularity of fi lm has fostered an avenue for the representations—and misrepresentations—of the Mexican, the Chicana/o, and the border dynamic. Hollywood film, embedded in both the physical landscape of the borderland and the imagined border space, cultivates the space for nationalist US American identities. Consequently, films have the power to “teach,” especially with regard to Otherness. The imagined border utilized in popular film becomes the classroom in which citizenship is disseminated; the lessons taught do not always build a positive conception of migrants. Thus the study of Aztlán is central to understanding how identities and affects along the imagined border space are shaping the physical US/México borderlands. The legislative and enforcement rhetoric calling for a militarized border has become the status quo in many American cities. Laws like Arizona Senate bill 1070 (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 229

8/5/15 2:04 PM

230

|

affect and media imagery

Act), Alabama House bill 56 (Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act), and US Senate bill 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) reflect the need to address and attack an alien threat already rooted in communities throughout the United States. In today’s distorted characterizations of alien invaders, real and imagined, expressing support for heroic US American patriotism requires a rejection of the alien. But what if there were a way to stop, or even reverse, the reduction of the alien to a threat? José Esteban Muñoz’s disidentification turns alienhood on its head, offering a way to resist identification and the representative structures of power that support it. Muñoz suggests that the practice of disidentification is freeing, with an emphasis on the action, or performance, of disidentifying. He theorizes citizenship within the context of US Latinas/os, arguing that national identity is negotiated in terms of performance. The performance in this case is within a discourse of difference; “the game is rigged insofar as it is meant to block access to freedom to those who cannot inhabit or at least mimic certain affective rhythms that have been preordained as acceptable.” Identity manifesting out of rigid structures of power—migration and nationalism in particular—reinforces those structures of difference, and bodies excluded from the practices of freedom accept identifiers of Other (or alien). For Muñoz, disidentification is neither an “identification nor a counter-identification—it is a working on, with, and against a form at a simultaneous moment.” It is a resistance that rejects representation and eludes labels. Disidentification is a sustained critique that adopts an affective strategy, fostering new imaginings for new power relationships and new practices challenging citizenship in border spaces. The battle over the imagined border space is waged between those who see Aztlán as a space free of rigid identifiers, fi lled with potential for bodies to express new possibilities, and those who wish to enforce a rigid citizen/ noncitizen paradigm on bodies along the border. Therefore, ownership of the imagined border space means the ability to shape the physical border landscape, as either a place where only some bodies are marked with rigid identities of belonging, or a place where belonging is offered to all those moving in and through the landscape. Relying on a critique rooted in disidentification, I focus on how theories of identification can account for only some of the ways in which audiences form attitudes toward extraterrestrials through invasion narratives. I argue that through the distortion of the fictional alien in Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles, audiences become attuned to reject the presence of aliens and adopt a prideful support of the US military in their

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 230

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

231

identification with the characters and in their affective experiences of alienhood. Rejection and distortion are more than just symbolic attitudes toward aliens; Hollywood actively participates in perpetuating a grotesque expression of alienhood in the United States.

Alien Identification and Alien Affects Borders, DeChaine argues, are not only the physical and territorial manifestations of nationalist and neoliberal policies; rather, borders are the product of a performance of maintaining difference between US Americans and Others. He suggests that the rhetorical performance of borders in particular contributes to the maintenance of a border between bodies. For Ono, border significance is embedded in the materiality of the structures dividing México and the United States; for others, the significance lies in the material implications these structures have on the performance of citizenship, labor, and nationalism. In other words, “borders travel.” For borders to travel, I argue, the bodies that are performing bordering have to become attuned to particular dynamics that distinguish citizens from noncitizens. This attunement distorts the alien Other in such a way as to make the difference between citizen and noncitizen stark. In this section, I briefly describe that process of distortion by building on theories of identification and affect. Then I consider how distortion in extraterrestrial-invasion film over the last several decades has attuned viewers to aliens. Identification, as demonstrated by Kenneth Burke, is a “symbolic act” that requires an attunement to the situational and personal aspects of the time. Burke points out that this act is a choice made by a spectator of an event to react in accordance with his or her own sociopolitical position in particular sociopolitical environments. Since the attitudes toward migrant aliens and extraterrestrial aliens may be considered analogous, the relationship is based in “associational clusters.” To make sense of how alien-invasion films juxtapose aliens and natives, I explore “‘what goes with what’ in these clusters—[and] what kinds of acts and images and personalities and situations go with .  .  . notions of heroism, villainy, consolation, despair, etc.” Burke’s frames of identification are useful here because they account for the ways in which extraterrestrial films have evolved over a number of decades, rather than rely only on one specific correlation in any specific text. While Burkean frames do not fully consider the affective productions of alienhood, they allow me to investigate

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 231

8/5/15 2:04 PM

232

|

affect and media imagery

what identifiable aspects of US American culture characterize the Mexican migrant alien in popular US American films. Burke describes a number of categories of literary and historical narrative, “as each of the great poetic forms stresses its own peculiar way of building the mental equipment (meanings, attitudes, character) by which one handles the significant factors of [her or] his time.” At one end, the epic and tragic frames are the most expansive of forms, allowing for a seemingly endless narrative over an expansive space. They are characterized by acceptance of the characteristics that make a hero superhuman and push for an elevation of society as a whole. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the burlesque, grotesque, and didactic forms rely on the reduction and rejection of both the situation around the characters and the characters themselves. For my analysis, the grotesque frame is best suited to inform an identity relationship in the alien discourse of today’s extraterrestrial-invasion films. The grotesque frame is a form of rejection that asks audiences to dismiss the distorted grotesque character to redeem society’s dominant cultural system. The grotesque entails a caricature, revealing and accentuating one penetrating characteristic attributed to the grotesque character. For Burke, this is akin to mysticism. “Mysticism as a collective movement belongs to periods marked by great confusion of the cultural frame, requiring a radical shift in people’s allegiance to symbols of authority.” Identification, a form of allegiance, moves drastically away from the “‘enlightened’ scheme of causal relationships.” It reduces the victim, emphasizing one distinct causal relationship. In general, frames of full rejection remove any complexity from the characterization of the grotesque subject. Rejection is against the one overbearing identifier of the subject, and all subsequent identifiers that may redeem the distorted subject are hidden. Rejection offers little to no morality in its characterizations. When considered in light of the contemporary victimization of the migrant alien or the extraterrestrial alien, frames of rejection “maintain” and “strengthen” the dominant cultural systems of citizenship in the United States. Given that the symbolic identification implied in Burke’s typology is applied through poetic frames, it is assumed that these frames translate over many media. From theater to political discourse, identification between audience and agent drives the rejection of the grotesque. With regard to the filmic experience of aliens, though, I argue that the ways in which aliens are produced for audiences goes beyond simply how one identifies with extraterrestrials—at stake, as important, is how they experience (aurally and visually) filmic extraterrestrials. For Brian Ott, the visceral experience of film adds an affec-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 232

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

233

tive layer to the narrative that focuses not on “what the film says or means, [but] more [on] what the film does and how it does it.” On Burke, Ott adds that “an ‘attitude’ is often an incipient action, an orientation or predisposition toward the world,” and that attitudes “entail fully embodied experiences. Affect, as well as (and in combination with) reason, inclines us to form and adopt some attitudes and not others.” The visual and aural production of excessive affects contributes to the distortion of the filmic alien into a grotesque invader, and drives audiences to form fearful and anxious attitudes toward migrant aliens in real border spaces. Ott’s development of Jean-François Lyotard’s narrative figure emerges as a way to show the unique relationship between extraterrestrial-invasion films, film audiences, and the US/México borderland. An affect is a felt change in the intensities that populate our environments. An “affect is an impingement or extrusion of a momentary or sometimes more sustained state of relation as well as the passage (and duration of passage) of forces and intensities.” Affects are not feelings. Feelings are the attributes given to our subjective selves; affects are the felt intensities that register our bodies to feel. Teresa Brennan uses the example of walking into a room and being able to feel tension in the atmosphere: “The ‘atmosphere’ or the environment literally gets into the individual. Physically and biologically, something is present that was not there before . . . it was not generated solely or sometimes even in part by the individual organism or its genes.” For Ott, the process of channeling affect in film happens at the level of figure; “whereas discourse closes down or fixes meaning, the figural explodes it, exceeding both rationality and representation.” Affects add experientially to the narrative of the film that attunes the audience to attitudes and feelings, filling in the gaps that short filmic narratives often leave out. Ott argues that while the narrative requires audiences to relate to situations outside the film, the figural is immediate. In the case of alien-invasion films, the figural adds a layer of bodily experience to the narrative of invasion, fostering a visceral distortion of the alien Other at the moment audiences experience it. These experiences, added to the layer of the narrative, manifest feelings of fear and anxiety toward the alien Other and pride for a nativist rejection of it. Because affects are felt through relations between bodies, persistent differences between those bodies make intensities political. With regard to racial difference, Muñoz suggests that “the affect of Latinos/as is often off. One can even argue that it is off-white. The ‘failure’ of Latino affect, in relation to the hegemonic protocols of North American affective comportment, revolves

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 233

8/5/15 2:04 PM

234

|

affect and media imagery

around an understanding of the Latina or the Latino as affective excess.” Excessive alien affects are communicated through perceptions of changing intensities that distort the bodies of those who are perceived to be illegal. Thus excessive affects attached to migrating bodies, and the reactions of those perceiving them, foster environments of exclusion for the migrant Latina/o body. I submit that, like dominant attitudes about extraterrestrials in film, “dominant attitudes about immigration .  .  . are articulated, developed, contested, and internalized through affective investments/associations, which are also themselves shaped by both public and personal experience.” National affects of US citizenship can be disseminated and policed through regional and national anti-immigration legislation: SB 1070, HB 56, and S. 744. Cisneros, for example, focuses on how this border discourse contains the affective and emotional maneuvers to shape political landscapes within the US/México borderland. For Muñoz, there is an urgency to “unpack the material and historical import of affect as well as emotion to better understand failed and actualized performances of citizenship.” Recent filmic expressions of invasive extraterrestrial aliens have exposed audiences to a symbolic construction of nationalism through the rejection of extraterrestrial identifiers as well as an affective experience of alien excess. This distortion of the alien into a frightening, anxiety-inducing invader occurs as the political and cultural environment around migration in the US transitions into militarization. Furthermore, today’s extraterrestrial films, situated in the imagined space of the US/México border, continue to invite national pride in militarization against alien invasion. The contested relationships between alien invader and citizen are played out in a battle for the right to occupy the imagined space. Today, the grotesque, distorted alien, a caricature, is a slimy, unrecognizable form with an insect mentality and grandiose plans for intergalactic domination. Starting with the film Independence Day, and more recently in films like Cloverfield, Battle: Los Angeles, Battleship, and the Transformers series, this grotesque alien is reduced to a US-threatening alien Other. This shift from the earth vs. alien struggle typical of prior films reimagines the performance of alien invasion as a threat to US national security. In the next section, I analyze this modern expression of grotesque alien invasion by looking specifically at the fi lms Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles. These films utilize the grotesque distortion of the alien in narratives of militarization and nationalism, while also producing an intense affective experience for audiences.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 234

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

235

Militarized Imagined Borders: Independence Day and Battle: Los Angeles For Hollywood, occupation of the imagined border space becomes increasingly important as the US military takes a leading role in both the fi lmic and real borderlands. After all, the main agent in constructing boundaries is the state—”a political territorial entity whose principal functions are to provide security, largely against real and imagined alien forces.” From the titles alone, audiences know that these fi lms evoke sentiments of patriotism and celebration of US American military prowess against the backdrop of the imagined US/México border. Independence Day localizes the present-day battle between alien and soldier in the US American Southwest, placing the performances of characters squarely in the midst of a fictional US/México border conflict. Battle: Los Angeles is set exclusively in Southern California’s largest city, and depicts an invasion from an alien threat in an imagined borderland. In both cases, the scene is set for a clash between threatening aliens and the US military. In the summer of 1996, just days before the United States’ 220th birthday, filmgoers flocked to theaters to watch a visually stunning celebration of US American persistence and solidarity in the face of tyranny. Independence Day, like many films in the extraterrestrial genre, captivated audiences with aerial battle scenes featuring all the firepower of the US military and panicked pedestrians scrambling to escape the alien threat. Despite a predictable storyline, the film exceeds most Hollywood extraterrestrial films with its overthe-top depiction of the grotesquely distorted invader battling the US military-security complex. Like Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles deploys the US military to the front lines of an attack by grotesque invaders from another planet. Analyzing the constructed identities of US American patriots against the alien invaders and the production of the alien affect in these two films, I demonstrate that attitudes toward aliens have pitted citizens against migrants in the physical border landscape. Through the cinematic portrayals of alien invasion, and subsequent national(ist) response, three narratives emerge that resonate analogously with attitudes toward migrant aliens during the respective time period in which each film was produced. First, both films are predicated on invasion as the primary and singular action attributed to aliens, requiring the mobilization of the US military to provide protection for the United States. The extremely

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 235

8/5/15 2:04 PM

236

|

affect and media imagery

loud sounds of destruction and screaming are accompanied by images of some of the most treasured US landmarks exploding. Second, each film depicts an alien autopsy, giving audiences an up-close look at the excessively grotesque alien body. After the distorted body of the alien is examined and killed, the US military gains the upper hand, giving the characters in each film a strategy for battling and defeating the grotesque invaders. Finally, once the safety of the citizens is ensured, destroying the source of alien knowledge (the mother ship) becomes the priority of those commanding US military forces. Fear and anxiety are quickly replaced by pride as intricate military maneuvers are performed to sever the aliens from their mother ships, leading to their eventual defeat (ultimate rejection).

Independence Day The film opens with scenes from earth’s moon—the most outlying US territory, as indicated by the artifacts left from the Apollo 11 mission. An ominous black circular spacecraft eclipses the screen, casting a shadow over the lunar landscape and the US American flag planted there. Immediately, the military is placed on alert, and scientists busily interpret their charts and computer monitors to find meaning in the messages; all the while, US Americans are unaware that an alien threat looms. Within minutes, the film’s main characters are scrambling to understand the messages relayed from the alien craft, concluding that the messages are in fact a countdown to attack. Out of nowhere, giant clouds of fire cast dark shadows over New York, Los Angeles, and other major cities around the globe; monstrous flying saucers emerge, sending citizens scattering in every direction. Suddenly, the world is in a panic; the presence of a large, dark figure disrupts the day-to-day actions of citizens. An ominous tone is set from the start. The film focuses on the actions of three men: the president of the United States, Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman), air force pilot Captain Steve Hiller (Will Smith), and a scientist, David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum). Levinson’s duty is to warn the president of the impending attack while the president tries to calm the nation, assuring citizens that “although it’s understandable that many of us feel a sense of hesitation or even fear, we must attempt to reserve judgment.” This only creates more anxiety, as people are seen fleeing their homes and jamming highways. Meanwhile, Captain Hiller, a sworn protector of US Americans, gears up for battle. It isn’t until after the aliens have vio-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 236

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

237

lently attacked, seemingly without provocation, that the stories of each of the three individuals become interwoven as a single story of unity against the alien Other. Audiences are constantly reminded that the film builds on patriotic elements of pride—military ceremony and firepower—juxtaposed in opposition to the invasive alien. The second half of the film is set in Area 51, a site distinctly linked to the extraterrestrial alien identity for nearly six decades. Located in the deserts of the US American Southwest, it coincides with the space of the imagined borderlands, Aztlán. After the filmic destruction of many of the largest US cities, citizens flock to the desert to seek safety from the approaching alien threat. In the desert, we are given a glimpse of the alien, captured by Captain Hiller. It is slimy and amphibious, with tentacles and a biomechanical exoskeleton, and has no human-compatible communicative mechanism. Its aural expressions are strange and high-pitched, and hurt the ears of humans. Its body is large, with tentacles that extend for yards. There is no mouth or nose, just two black eyes stereotypical of the iconic alien caricature from the 1950s. During the alien’s examination, a violent encounter ensues when it awakens; President Whitmore, staring at the creature from behind a glass pane, tells one of his military advisors that “they are like locusts, moving from planet to planet. Their whole civilization, after they consume every natural resource, they move on . . . and we’re next.” Whitmore, after a brief pause, makes a decision: “Nuke ’em! Let’s nuke the bastards.” In the early morning hours of July 4, President Whitmore reaches for a loudspeaker and breaks into an impromptu speech invoking the image of humankind on the brink of destruction: “We are fighting for our right to live, to exist, and should we win today, the Fourth of July will no longer be remembered as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared . . . we will not go quietly into the night . . . we’re going to live on, we’re going to survive.” Meanwhile, Captain Hiller and David Levinson prepare for an all-out offensive on the slowly approaching warship. The group of scientists and military leaders decides that infecting the mother ship with a “bug,” thereby destroying it, would sever the source of alien knowledge from the aliens already on earth. Nationalist sentiments of freedom and sovereignty are placed in opposition to the destructive, colonial, and dominating actions taken by the alien invaders. Audiences pridefully reject the alien invaders and their invasive motives, while simultaneously accepting the nationalist identity of unity between the military, government, and citizenry. Independence Day ends with the successful destruction of the alien mother ship and a celebration at Area 51. Without the defenses provided by the mother

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 237

8/5/15 2:04 PM

238

|

affect and media imagery

ship, the aliens on the ground are helpless before the prowess of the US military; the rest of the world, including the audience, is soon left with the blueprint for defeating waves of invasive aliens. Having eliminated the source of alien knowledge, the US military is poised to teach others how to defeat the invasive alien Other and maintain, if not strengthen, a unified (dominant) cultural identity. Since Independence Day does not end with the elimination of all alien threats, the audience leaves the film with a sense of incompleteness. As audiences leaving theaters are transported back into physical migration battlegrounds (anywhere in the United States, really), they know full well that an unfinished battle lingers. The threat remains, and the bonds between militarism, nationalism, and the necessary elimination of alien threats are solidified by the affective attunement of audiences to aliens. Audiences are affectively primed to the intensities of Otherness and patriotism that they have experienced in watching Independence Day, and must negotiate those intensities that remain. Battle: Los Angeles Battle: Los Angeles opens with large, meteorlike objects propelling toward the sandy beaches of western Los Angeles as screaming beachgoers scatter in panic. Immediately, the national news reports on the attack. The military is activated to deploy into the “battlefield” as it becomes clear (via network news coverage) that the objects are in fact alien crafts carrying invasive extraterrestrials. From this point forward, the narrative of the film is told from the perspective of the marine unit that is deployed, first to save civilians, and then to destroy the alien transmitter—a gargantuan, dark, and complex edifice that has burrowed itself into the heart of downtown Los Angeles. As in Independence Day, public reaction to an imminent, frightening threat is the first and most immediate propeller of action—justification for the deployment of tactical military operations against the alien invader. As the film develops, panic and anxiety accompany the fragmented voices of citizens, mass media, and the military. The voice of the veteran military leader, the main narrative voice of the film, is that of Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart). He is a seasoned veteran plagued with guilt over the loss of his unit in the invasion of Afghanistan. The alien attack happens on the brink of his planned retirement, and he is thrust into the role of platoon leader. His initial mission, aided by Second Lieutenant William Martinez (Ramón Rodríguez) and several others, is to rendezvous with a team of army reservists,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 238

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

239

including Sergeant Elena Santos (Michelle Rodriguez). As in Independence Day, soldiers perform citizenship as they respond to the alien invasion. At one point, when one new soldier is told that the threat may be extraterrestrial, he asks, “You mean, like, space?” The second soldier wryly responds, “No, from Canada.” Returning from their meeting with the civilian reservists, the citizensoldiers are bombarded by regiments of alien invaders. At one point, civilian Joe Rincon (Michael Peña) takes up a soldier’s rifle to shoot an alien, saving the soldier but being mortally wounded. As in Independence Day, the soldiers conduct an autopsy on a mortally wounded alien combatant in the police station before it dies. This alien is monstrous, and is fused to biomechanical armor and weaponry. In order to gather valuable information on how to kill the alien, Nantz dissects the creature, looking for weaknesses in its “biology.” This creature looks like an octopus; it has no brain, no “frontal lobe, no temporal lobe, no parietal lobe.” It makes strange, high-pitched sounds that amplify as the soldiers stab at its various body parts. Eventually, the group finds a slimy, clear organ “where the heart is supposed to be.” They violently stab at this organ until the alien dies, its long tentacles writhing all over the floor of the police station. This scene reemphasizes the excessively grotesque sounds and images of the alien invader by demonstrating how distorted, indeed inhuman, this creature is. Nantz contacts his commander and describes how he and the others have discovered how to kill the invaders. Shortly thereafter, the civilians are brought to safety. This film successfully unifies many representative voices of US Americans (though in a situation reduced from that of Independence Day). Nantz delivers a compelling speech to his soldiers, culminating in a prideful call to locate and eliminate the alien beacon in the city center. Just before this speech, Nantz is consoling Hector (Bryce Cass), Joe’s son, over the death of his father. Hector, Joe, and several others perform exaggerated Latina/o identities, and Joe’s sacrifice and Hector’s “adoption” by Nantz are indicative of the hegemonic lumping of multiple identities into a single US American voice. Nantz tells Hector that he is his “little Marine,” and that “Marines don’t quit.” The role of Latinas/ os in the film significantly reflects the history of the Latina/o presence in the US military. Through stereotype, the characters are coded as Latina/o; however, through their participation in the military operation, they are able to demonstrate their patriotism. The film depicts the emergence of national pride in the erasure of aliens, but also in the erasure of excessive Latina/o affects, which are minimal when compared to those of the grotesque alien invader.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 239

8/5/15 2:04 PM

240

|

affect and media imagery

Thus further lines are drawn in the borderlands, demonstrating what performances of Latinidad are acceptable and what the cost of this acceptability is. In solidarity, the soldiers descend upon the city center. In the face of constant shelling from alien aircraft and heavy artillery fire from alien ground troops, they locate the immense structure and begin their assault. A strategic operation is carried out in collaboration between Nantz’s ground troops and the air force. US American aircraft target and deliver a series of missiles to the transmitter, and the structure is destroyed. The remaining soldiers are evacuated and celebrated at base camp for the discovery and destruction of the aliens. At the film’s end, Nantz and the others forgo rest to jump right back into the fight. As with Independence Day, audiences are left to continue the battle after the movie is over. The last scene shows the immense battle ahead; armed with blueprints on how to eliminate the alien threat, Americans can win the battle for the imagined and physical space of the US/México border.

Concluding Thoughts: Reshaping the Landscapes of the Real Border Space In 1996, Independence Day staged one of Hollywood’s largest battles for humankind. Its release came at a time when the United States was disengaging from Operation Desert Storm in Iraq. In 1994, just two years before the film’s release, the United States implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Dashing the hopes of both the US and Mexican governments that the measure would decrease both authorized and unauthorized migration from México into the United States, NAFTA led to an increase of more than 350,000 migrants from México in 1994 alone, nearly 90 percent of whom entered without authorization. It was also in 1994 that the US Department of Justice released a report entitled “Enhancing the Enforcement Authority of Immigration Officers, Final Rule.” This ruling authorizes migration officers to carry firearms to combat potentially aggressive migrants, and outlines the proper “show of authority” needed in detaining the migrant “if there is a likelihood of the alien escaping before a warrant can be obtained.” The ruling also gives immigration officers broad jurisdiction “without a warrant, consent, or any particularized suspicion in order to question any person whom the officer believes to be an alien concerning his or her right to be or remain in the United States.” These examples demonstrate how US state and military interests continue to shape the borderlands between the United

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 240

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

241

States and México. Too, extraterrestrial-invasion films participate actively in this rhetorical process. With the 2011 release of Battle: Los Angeles, the alien-invasion trope was revived as the latest in a series of Hollywood alien-invasion films that distort the alien invader to strengthen the US global military and ideological identity. The film builds on the intergalactic battle on the border introduced in Independence Day, captivating audiences both domestically and internationally. Battle: Los Angeles was released during a year marked by significant political and social upheaval. Combat operations in the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were being scaled back. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona had successfully advocated for the passage of Arizona Senate bill 1070, an austere anti-immigration act fraught with reactionary depictions of the invasive, border-crossing migrant. The bill is “intended to .  .  . discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” The bill, like Battle: Los Angeles, is predicated on the idea that the unlawful entry of migrant aliens into the United States is unprovoked and is therefore a violation of state sovereignty, an invasion. Though Arizona is perhaps the most notorious anti-immigrant state, multiple state bills have been passed nationwide since 2010, including in states that border México. Many of these state bills share language with Arizona Senate bill 1070, portraying the alien as an invader and a threat to the economic and social interests of the states. I focus on these two examples to demonstrate that US state and military interests continue to shape the actual borderlands between the United States and México. Film, extraterrestrial-invasion film in particular, actively participates in this shaping. Migration legislation and enforcement rely on both affective and militarized bombardments in order to control the presence of aliens. I argue that many in the United States—with the help of extraterrestrialinvasion films’ distortion of aliens—express anxious attitudes toward affectively excessive Latina/o Others, and act pridefully in support of a militarized borderland. Narratives of invasion and expressions of excessive difference in Battle: Los Angeles reoccupy the imagined border space left at the end of Independence Day, just as the battle for belonging along the physical border of the United States and México rages on. In just the last two decades, changing attitudes toward the alien invader have resulted in more troops, both on the actual border and on the imagined border. If this dangerous correlation between migrant and extraterrestrial persists in popular and institutional discourse, as a Burkean analysis predicts, the general discourse surrounding aliens

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 241

8/5/15 2:04 PM

242

|

affect and media imagery

may deteriorate into all-out division between us and them, alien and native. “Cultural tensions about immigrants coupled with psychological guilt and fear, together with doubts about the national identity, combine to produce, as they have done in other times in our history, xenophobia, isolationism, and nativism.” As I have noted, it is important to be critical of the expressions of alienhood prominent within these films. These are the expressions that articulate citizenship. They consist of a prideful protection and pedagogy of statehood and nationalism. In conjunction with the discourses of nationalism, the films actively shape attitudes against migrating bodies that possess alien affects, and that enter into the United States across the border with México. I advocate complicating attitudes about citizenship, starting with resistance against the distortion of the migrant in our social and political public discourses. By highlighting the role that affects play in performances of race, class, and gender in US American citizenship, this chapter explicates the rhetorical relationship between the nationalistic and militaristic resistance to aliens in filmic imaginations and the real threat posed to migrants when these performances are acted out in day-to-day life. My aim in this chapter has been to link the grotesque elements of contemporary alien-invasion films with identification and affect. I suggest that reading these texts in this way challenges the production and reproduction of alien affects in imagined border spaces, and sheds light on the latent media technologies that attune us to power inequity. I further advocate methodological disidentifications against reductive and violent characterizations of migrants in scholarship. The landscapes of the borderlands are rich with complex discourses and affective intensities. They are a space from which embodied knowledges emerge. Ideally, the imagined border should remain a space free of militarization and violence for all bodies. note s 1. See Marciniak Katarzyna, “Immigrant Rage: Alienhood, ‘Hygienic’ Identities, and the Second World,” Differences 17, no. 2 (2006): 33–63. 2. Alicia Gaspar de Alba, “The Chicana/Latina Dyad, or Identity and Perception,” Latino Studies 1 (2003): 106–14; Charles Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film: Stereotypes, Subversion, Resistance (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). 3. Katarzyna, “Immigrant Rage”; Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film. 4. Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film. 5. Ibid.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 242

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

243

6. I refer to discourses like Arizona Senate bill 1070 (49th legislature, 2nd sess., 2010); Alabama House bill 56 (2012 legislature, regular sess.); and US Senate bill 744 (113th Cong., 1st sess., 2013). 7. Timothy J. Dunn, “Border Militarization via Drug and Immigration Enforcement: Human Rights Implications,” Social Justice 28, no. 2 (2001): 7. 8. Ibid., 7–30. 9. Ibid. 10. Dunn, “Border Militarization”; US Senate bill 744; Mike Davis and Justin Akers Chacón, No One Is Illegal: Fighting Violence and State Repression on the U.S.-México Border (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006). 11. Independence Day (Twentieth Century Fox, 1996) was directed by Roland Emmerich; Battle: Los Angeles (Columbia Pictures, 2011), by Jonathan Liebesman. 12. Todd Gitlin, “Prime Time Ideology: The Hegemonic Process in Television Entertainment,” Social Problems 26, no. 3 (1979): 264. 13. Ibid. 14. See Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film. 15. See Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987). 16. Fernando Pedro Delgado, “Chicano Movement Rhetoric: An Ideographic Interpretation,” Communication Quarterly 43, no. 4 (1995): 446–75. 17. For a discussion of Gonzales’s rhetoric, see John C. Hammerback, Richard J. Jensen, and José Angel Gutírerrez, A War of Words: Chicano Protest in the 1960s and 1970s (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). 18. José David Saldívar, Border Matters: Remapping American Culture Studies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). 19. Ibid., 195. 20. Guillermo Gómez-Peña, Ethno-Techno: Writings on Performance, Activism, and Pedagogy (New York: Routledge, 2005). 21. Ibid., 8. 22. Michelle A. Holling and Bernadette Marie Calafell, “Identities on Stage and Staging Identities: ChicanoBrujo Performances as Emancipatory Practices,” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 425–41. 23. Lisa A. Flores, “Creating a Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft a Homeland,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82, no. 2 (1996): 142–56. 24. Dunn, “Border Militarization.” 25. Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film. 26. José Limón, “Stereotyping and Chicano Resistance: A Historical Dimension,” Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 4, no. 2 (1973): 257–70; Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film. 27. Carlos E. Cortés, “Who Is Maria? Who Is Juan? Dilemmas of Analyzing the Chicano Image in U.S. Feature Films,” in Chicanos in Film: Representation and Resistance, ed. Chon Noriega (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), 91. 28. See José Esteban Muñoz, Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). 29. Ibid. 30. José Esteban Muñoz, “Feeling Brown: Ethnicity and Affect in Ricardo Bracho’s The Sweetest Hangover (and Other STDs),” Theatre Journal 52 (2000): 69. 31. Muñoz, Disidentifications, 70. 32. See D. Robert DeChaine, ed., Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the USMexico Frontier (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012).

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 243

8/5/15 2:04 PM

244

|

affect and media imagery

33. Kent A. Ono, “Borders That Travel: Matters of the Figural Border,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 20. 34. Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 130. 35. Ibid., 20. 36. Ibid. 37. Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Toward History, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 34. 38. Ibid., 57. 39. Ibid., 57–58 (emphasis in original). 40. Ibid., 37. 41. Ibid. 42. Brian L. Ott, “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (2010): 40. 43. Ibid., 49–50. 44. Gilles Deleuze, “Lecture Transcripts on Spinoza’s Concept of Affect (1978),” Les cours de Gilles Deleuze, http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/sommaire.html; Erin Manning, Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009); Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002); Brian Massumi, Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurent Arts (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011). 45. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, The Affect Theory Reader (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002), 1. 46. See Teresa Brennan, The Transmission of Affect (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004). 47. Ibid., 1. 48. Ott, “Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta,” 42. 49. See Manning, Relationscapes. 50. Muñoz, “Feeling Brown,” 70. 51. See J. David Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 134–50; Michael Lechuga, “Affective Boundaries in a Landscape of Shame: Writing HB 56,” Journal of Argumentation in Context 3, no. 1 (2014): 83–101. 52. Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal,’” 137. 53. Muñoz, “Feeling Brown,” 69. 54. Cloverfield (Paramount Pictures, 2008) was directed by Matt Reeves; Battleship (Universal Pictures, 2012), by Peter Berg. Transformers (Dreamworks SKG, 2007), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Dreamworks SKG, 2009), and Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Paramount Pictures, 2011) were all directed by Michael Bay. 55. Joseph Nevins, “California Dreaming: Operation Gatekeeper and the Social Construction of the ‘Illegal Alien’ Along the Boundary” (PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1998), 370. 56. Roger Ebert, “Reviews: Independence Day,” RogerEbert.com, http://www.rogerebert .com/reviews/independence-day-1996. 57. Ibid. 58. Gustavo Flores-Macías, “NAFTA’s Unfulfilled Immigration Expectations,” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 20, no. 4 (2008): 435–41. 59. US Department of Justice, “Enhancing the Enforcement Authority of Immigration Officers, Final Rule” (8 C.F.R. 242 and 287, 1994). 60. Ibid. 61. Arizona Senate bill 1070. 62. Ibid.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 244

8/5/15 2:04 PM

battling identity warfare

|

245

63. See Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’”; Lechuga, “Affective Boundaries.” 64. Ramírez Berg, Latino Images in Film, 182.

bibl io gr a ph y Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987. Brennan, Teresa. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ———. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Cisneros, J. David. “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 134–50. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Cortés, Carlos E. “Who Is Maria? Who Is Juan? Dilemmas of Analyzing the Chicano Image in U.S. Feature Films.” In Chicanos in Film: Representation and Resistance, ed. Chon Noriega, 83–104. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Davis, Mike, and Justin Akers Chacón. No One Is Illegal: Fighting Violence and State Repression on the U.S.-México Border. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006. de Alba, Alicia Gaspar. “The Chicana/Latina Dyad, or Identity and Perception.” Latino Studies 1 (2003): 106–14. DeChaine, D. Robert, ed. Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Deleuze, Gilles. “Lecture Transcripts on Spinoza’s Concept of Affect (1978).” Les cours de Gilles Deleuze. http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/sommaire.html. Delgado, Fernando Pedro. “Chicano Movement Rhetoric: An Ideographic Interpretation.” Communication Quarterly 43, no. 4 (1995): 446–75. Dunn, Timothy J. “Border Militarization via Drug and Immigration Enforcement: Human Rights Implications.” Social Justice 28, no. 2 (2001): 7–30. Ebert, Roger. “Reviews: Independence Day.” RogerEbert.com. http://www.rogerebert.com/ reviews/independence-day-1996. Flores, Lisa A. “Creating a Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft a Homeland.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82, no. 2 (1996): 142–56. Flores-Macías, Gustavo. “NAFTA’s Unfulfi lled Immigration Expectations.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 20, no. 4 (2008): 435–41. Gitlin, Todd. “Prime Time Ideology: The Hegemonic Process in Television Entertainment.” Social Problems 2, no. 3 (1979): 251–66. Gómez-Peña, Guillermo. Ethno-Techno: Writings on Performance, Activism, and Pedagogy. New York: Routledge, 2005. Gregg, Melissa, and Gregory J. Seigworth. The Affect Theory Reader. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Hammerback, John C., Richard J. Jensen, and José Angel Gutírerrez. A War of Words: Chicano Protest in the 1960s and 1970s. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Holling, Michelle A., and Bernadette Marie Calafell. “Identities on Stage and Staging Identities: ChicanoBrujo Performances as Emancipatory Practices.” Text and Performance Quarterly 27 (2007): 425–41. Katarzyna, Marciniak. “Immigrant Rage: Alienhood, ‘Hygienic’ Identities, and the Second World.” Differences 17, no. 2 (2006): 33–63. Lechuga, Michael. “Affective Boundaries in a Landscape of Shame: Writing HB 56.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 3, no. 1 (2014): 83–101.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 245

8/5/15 2:04 PM

246

|

affect and media imagery

Limón, José. “Stereotyping and Chicano Resistance: A Historical Dimension.” Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 4, no. 2 (1973): 257–70. Manning, Erin. Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009. Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. ———. Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurent Arts. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. Muñoz, José Esteban. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. ———. “Feeling Brown: Ethnicity and Affect in Ricardo Bracho’s The Sweetest Hangover (and Other STDs).” Theatre Journal 52 (2000): 67–79. Nevins, Joseph. “California Dreaming: Operation Gatekeeper and the Social Construction of the ‘Illegal Alien’ Along the Boundary.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1998. Ono, Kent A. “Borders That Travel: Matters of the Figural Border.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 19–32. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Ott, Brian L. “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (2010): 39–54. Ramírez Berg, Charles. Latino Images in Film: Stereotypes, Subversion, Resistance. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Saldívar, José David. Border Matters: Remapping American Culture Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. US Department of Justice. “Enhancing the Enforcement Authority of Immigration Officers, Final Rule.” 8 C.F.R. 242 and 287, 1994.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 246

8/5/15 2:04 PM

11

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric, or what happens when a minuteman lives with unauthorized immigrants? J. David Cisneros

It should probably go without saying that immigration and border policy in the United States are emotionally charged, highly polarized issues. This observation, however, raises a number of difficult questions. Which affects and emotions suff use immigration rhetoric? How do these public feelings influence debates on immigration? What are the possibilities for progressive dialogue on immigration in light of what seem to be highly polarized emotions? This essay explores such questions by examining an episode of American documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock’s television series 30 Days, as well as the reaction to the television episode and its circulation in public debate. In each hour-long episode of 30 Days, the protagonist (Spurlock or some other individual) spends thirty days immersed in a particular lifestyle or community. For example, episodes include Spurlock living on minimum wage for a month, or an atheist living as a Christian for a month. In “Immigration,” which aired July 26, 2006, Frank Jorge, a Cuban American citizen and member of a minutemen vigilante border patrol group, surrenders his legal documentation and spends thirty days living with a family of unauthorized immigrants in East Los Angeles, in their small one-bedroom apartment. Referred to as the Gonzaleses (a pseudonym), the family includes Rigoberto and Paty, and their children, Armida, Sebastian, Albanidia, Ricardo, and Karina (the youngest two are native-born US citizens). The show follows Jorge as he works with Mr. Gonzales as a day laborer, becomes a part of the family, and experiences the life of an unauthorized immigrant. My analysis focuses on the ways in which this episode of 30 Days dramatized a number of conflicting and interrelated affects and emotions about immigration in US public discourse, including fear of the threat posed by the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 247

8/5/15 2:04 PM

248

|

affect and media imagery

immigrant “other,” anger at immigrants’ supposed encroachment of the national body, and possessive love of one’s country. I argue that this particular media artifact is significant insofar as it helps us understand how such affects and emotions suff use immigration rhetoric, and what the possibilities are to rhetorically disrupt and rearticulate these emotional investments. To clarify, I understand affect as a visceral mode of experience, consisting of bodily energy and intensity, and emotion as the “capture” of affect in the process of cognition and signification. In other words, affect is a mode of perception that is immanent, that consists of “relation and intensity,” and that embodies “a body’s capacity to affect and to be affected.” An emotion, in contrast, defines the actualization or concretization of affect (of this pure, visceral potentiality) into particular forms of meaning, social/cultural signification, and/or expression. Significantly, this distinction between affect and emotion is not meant to imply that they are independent or purely personal modes of experience; rather, both affect and emotion feed into each other and are influenced by culture and circulated in and through discourse. Rhetorical scholars have long been attuned to the role of pathos in constructing negative and nativist portrayals of immigrants, immigration, and citizenship. Building on this work, this essay theorizes affect as a form of emotional and moral value that animates and subtends immigration rhetoric. Foregrounding the affective and emotional registers of immigration discourse is central to understanding how and why certain impressions of immigrants and immigration persist. Theorizing the role of affect and emotion in immigration rhetoric helps to describe the why and how of certain ideologies, representations, and relations. It also helps us recognize that public attitudes about immigration are made up of complex emotional investments that become sedimented through their circulation and thus can only be circumvented by interrupting or redirecting these flows of affective energy. The 30 Days reality TV episode provides a vehicle for exploring these theoretical and critical issues. As I detail below, the show dramatized and disrupted predominant public feelings about immigrants and immigration (e.g., fear, anger) by evoking empathy for the Gonzales family, and by narrating Frank Jorge’s emotional journey from angry minuteman to compassionate friend of unauthorized immigrants. At the same time, public reactions to the episode—including controversial claims by Frank Jorge that he had been misrepresented, as well as a virulent backlash directed at the Gonzales family— stuck the show’s meaning within the dominant emotions of immigration in public culture. In other words, 30 Days potentially circulated alternative emo-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 248

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

249

tions than those that form the dominant emotional habitus of the immigration debate, but the reception of the show impeded this potential and, in many ways, entrenched the polarized nature of immigration rhetoric. I unpack this argument, first, by elaborating on its conceptual and theoretical contours and, second, by analyzing the affective and emotional dimensions of the 30 Days documentary in the context of its circulation in public discourse. This analysis illuminates some of the affects and emotions of immigration rhetoric, and provides insights for scholars interested in rhetorics of immigration and national identity. The conclusion extrapolates programmatic and theoretical insights for rhetorical scholars interested in affect and immigration. In particular, it points to the importance of affective and emotional dimensions in immigration rhetoric, and situates the study of affect and emotion within a critical rhetorical project. By tracing affective and emotional economies surrounding immigration as they circulate and are enacted through discourse, my ultimate goal is to explore possibilities for challenging the emotionally charged, highly polarized contemporary immigration debate.

Affect, Emotion, and Immigration Rhetoric Scholarship in the humanities has experienced what some have called an “affective turn.” In rhetorical studies, this scholarship—whether it concerns political rhetoric, cinema, or music—illustrates the ways in which affect and emotion are partially articulated in, and circulated through, public discourse. From this perspective, affect is understood as a form of value that is created and circulated through rhetorical exchange. Affect and emotion work through and “are lodged within an economy of tropes” and discourses. As Catherine Chaput explains, “Like economic value, emotional value is not derived merely within production . . . or consumption. . . . Neither economic nor discursive value can be captured in isolated moments of exchange. It is only in the process of [rhetorical] circulation .  .  . that value comes into existence.” Chaput is drawing here, in part, on feminist scholar Sara Ahmed’s idea of an affective economy. For Ahmed, Chaput, and others, this idea of an affective economy describes the ways in which affect and emotion accrue out of the circulation of objects, words, symbols, images, and bodies. As Ahmed writes, “Affect does not reside in an object or sign, but is an effect of the circulation between objects and signs (= the accumulation of affective value).” Rhetoric creates, feeds upon, and circulates affective and emotional value. These values take shape

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 249

8/5/15 2:04 PM

250

|

affect and media imagery

through the circulation of objects in affective economies, which are sedimented relationships of rhetorical and affective exchange. How does this affective and emotional value accrue or become invested in certain signs, objects, or bodies as they circulate in affective economies? Here, another explanatory metaphor provided by Ahmed is that of “stickiness.” Objects, bodies, signs, words, symbols, images, and discourses circulate and become stuck to/with affects and emotions because certain feelings accumulate around those objects. The metaphor of stickiness describes both how certain affects and emotions get articulated to things as well as how certain things become invested with affective and emotional value. Things become “sticky” with affect because they circulate over and over in proximity to, alongside of, and in exchange for certain affects; they become stuck together with particular affects enough times to deposit a residue of the affect on the thing. Ahmed gives the example of racial slurs to illustrate the ways in which symbols become stuck to and with certain affective and emotional values, influencing the ways in which they are used, received, and evaluated. Affect and emotion are forms of value that provide a valence and moral and instrumental worth when they become stuck to specific objects (e.g., this causes happiness and that causes unhappiness). For rhetorical scholars, texts, symbols, and discursive fragments represent “nodal points” in the circulation, accumulation, and/or interruption of affective and emotional value. The metaphors of affective economies and stickiness help rhetorical scholars conceptualize affect as accrued through rhetorical circulation, as certain symbols or things become invested in and stuck to certain affects and emotions. So, for example, in a previous essay I argued that Arizona’s anti-immigrant Senate bill 1070 and the image of the racialized, threatening, “illegal” immigrant body, which the law circulated and codified, represented one such nodal point in the “stickiness” of affective and emotional value surrounding immigration. The autonomic experience of affect can be channeled, mobilized, or “stuck” to particular objects through the circulation and sedimentation of public discourse and in the service of particular interests. Similarly, certain behaviors, objects, symbols, or practices become routinized and sedimented with emotional meaning. Although it is a cognitive/symbolic process, emotion itself is produced through the actions and exchanges that capture affects into certain pathways of meaning. I use the term “emotional habitus” to refer to such a (discursive) accumulation of affect and emotion into a structured and structuring system. Deborah Gould describes an emotional habitus as a “disposi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 250

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

251

tion,” which entails “a sense of what and how to feel, with labels for [these] feelings, with schemas about what feelings are and what they mean, with ways of figuring out and understanding what they are feeling.” We could say that an emotional habitus represents a web of stuck-together signs, objects, symbols, and meanings that become sedimented and internalized, and help to funnel affect into certain emotional pathways. An emotional habitus channels “affective charges” and emotional responses through “the operations of power” and in socially sanctioned ways. Thus affect and emotion are central to the circulation and functioning of ideology. In sum, an affective economy describes a system of exchange and circulation of objects and discourses through which affective value accrues. Certain things become “sticky” with affect as a consequence of their circulation with, exchange for, and proximity to certain affects. When these exchanges become ritualized habits of feeling, acting, and understanding, which are themselves invested in power relationships, they can best be understood as an emotional habitus. One final point to emphasize is that, because affective economies are only instantiated through (rhetorical) circulation, because an emotional habitus is only embodied in social and discursive “practices,” those affective and emotional scripts can be subverted and rewritten. Affect exceeds symbolic structure because it is immanent and represents pure intensity. Thus the excess of affect provides the potential for the disruption of or challenge to dominant affective and emotional economies. As Gould writes, “Every ‘capture’ of affect” through an emotional habitus “coincides with an escape of affect as well. . . . There is always something more than what is actualized in social life.” Attention to emotion has been an implicit concern in research on the rhetoric of immigration. Previous work outlines a fairly persistent schema of metaphors, tropes, and representations that, at their worst, portray immigrants as dangerous, frightening, threatening, and destructive or, at their best, construct immigrants in relation to a certain exotic otherness or “affective excess” that is attenuated through assimilation. Recurring tropes and representations of immigrants (as dangers, pollutants, criminals, and so on) are stuck to one another and to certain affects of “excess,” fear, threat, and “alienization,” which gain momentum in public discourse about immigration, materially excluding migrants and minorities. Similarly, a racialized, gendered, and sexualized “national affect” defines the “proper” way of performing and embodying citizenship, which is itself associated with affects of patriotic love and joy. These affects are channeled through and onto bodies, contributing

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 251

8/5/15 2:04 PM

252

|

affect and media imagery

to the social policing of borders and the prosecution and persecution of immigrants or racialized groups. And this complex emotional habitus helps to shape public attitudes about migration, mobility, and citizenship more broadly. This is not to say that there is only one emotional habitus surrounding immigration, but that contemporary public debate undeniably demonstrates the prevalence of certain feelings, which, as Jenny Edbauer Rice summarizes, “emerge less from exigencies than from a kind of accretion of linkages (immigration-job loss-security loss-danger-crime).” Certain discourses of immigration predominate because they index certain affects and emotions, such as fear, hatred, or possessive love of one’s country. In turn, it is through the circulation of “sticky” symbols and tropes (those that are “sticky” with feelings) that an emotional habitus surrounding immigration congeals. Building on this work, I want to use theorizations of affect and emotion from cultural theory and rhetorical theory discussed above as opportunities to think systematically about how affect and emotion suff use immigration discourse and ideology. Rhetorical scholars can provide unique insights into how affects and emotions circulate and become sedimented—how they ground ideologies and influence public imaginaries surrounding immigration, citizenship, and national identity. Attending explicitly to the affective and emotional economies of immigration rhetoric can help elaborate how and why certain representations of immigrants and of citizens recur or circulate over others. Such a project also provides rhetorical scholars interested in immigration with an expanded perspective on how rhetoric can disrupt or redirect affects surrounding immigration toward progressive ends. The following case study of immigration discourse not only provides new trajectories for the scholarship on immigration rhetoric but also helps to contextualize, concretize, and extend rhetorical theories of affect. In the next section, these issues are explored by focusing specifically on the affects and emotions surrounding immigration as they circulated in and around the 30 Days episode “Immigration.” I argue that the reality TV show helped to stage and to disrupt one predominant emotional habitus of the immigration debate through a story of emotional conflict and redemption in which the anti-immigrant minuteman Frank Jorge became friends with the Gonzales family and ultimately tempered his virulent nativism. However, this very narrative of Jorge’s emotional redemption generated intense controversy among its audience. Attention to the show’s circulation demonstrates that while some commentators praised 30 Days for its sympathetic framing of the immigration issue, others objected to its explicitly emotional appeals. In addi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 252

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

253

tion, a number of controversies, including backlash directed at the Gonzales family and objections raised by Jorge about his purported misrepresentation in the episode, reaffirmed the polarized emotional habitus of the immigration debate. Although one could examine many other pop culture discourses of immigration—in fact, many of them have attempted to humanize immigrants—I am analyzing this particular artifact because it helps us understand how affect and emotion suffuse immigration discourse. In fact, I suggest below that attending to affective and emotional economies of immigration illuminates not only why repeated attempts to humanize immigrants in pop culture and political rhetoric have failed, but also how such efforts could be undertaken more productively.

When a Minuteman Moves in with Unauthorized Immigrants From the beginning, the 30 Days “Immigration” episode is framed as a study in Jorge’s emotions about immigration and the conflicts they create as he lives with a family of unauthorized immigrants. As a “docusoap” television show, 30 Days focuses on interpersonal drama and conflict. At the same time, like other recent documentary films and television shows on immigration, the episode presents a broader “immigrant rights” narrative by portraying the Gonzales family in a sympathetic and humanizing light. Spurlock frames the episode thusly in its opening segment: “A patriotic immigrant vigilante that patrols the border to keep it secure moves in with a family of illegal immigrants in the heart of LA. Will he hold on to his beliefs that illegal immigrants are a plague on the nation that needs to be removed, or will he come to see them as equals that deserve to become Americans?” Initially Frank demonstrates an abundance of fear and anger about immigration. He states, “I have already been through the experience of losing a country, and what we see developing here is [sic] the possibilities of extreme civil strife and violence.” Working within a dominant emotional habitus of the immigration debate characterized by fear and threat, Frank explains that he and his wife first got involved with the minutemen after September 11, which he saw as “an immigration-related issue.” He announces, in the confessionalstyle interview characteristic of reality TV, that if he had his way he would arrive at the Gonzaleses’ home along with an “INS bus” to deport them. The first half of the episode dramatizes conflicts surrounding this antiimmigrant emotional habitus. Frank and the Gonzaleses share work, meals,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 253

8/5/15 2:04 PM

254

|

affect and media imagery

and family time, all the while engaging in regular, emotionally charged debates about immigration that index fear, suspicion, and anger. However, Frank’s interactions with the Gonzales family (in particular, with Rigoberto and Paty and their oldest daughter, Armida) gradually move him to question his feelings and the predominant emotional habitus they represent. As he befriends the family and experiences the hardships they face, Frank vocalizes a tension between his anti-immigrant sentiments and his emerging feelings for his hosts (as he puts it in one confessional interview, his feeling “torn between emotions”). Frank’s emotional journey from angry vigilante to compassionate friend of unauthorized immigrants allows 30 Days dramatically to stage and then disrupt the emotional habitus of (anti-)immigrant discourse. In other words, the audience is meant to identify with Frank’s emotional journey, embracing a more humanizing view of unauthorized immigrants. As I explain below, my argument is not that the audience does or even is meant to identify with Frank Jorge himself, but rather that Frank’s new affects and emotions punctuate the dominant emotional habitus of immigration discourse. These re-stick the affects of immigration, and become sticky for the audience, helping to transmit compassion for unauthorized immigrants. With this broader narrative in mind, closer attention to a few of the scenes from the episode illustrates how 30 Days stages and evokes emotion. For example, at the end of day four of Frank’s thirty days, one of Armida’s high school teachers, Mr. Young, treats the family to dinner to celebrate Armida’s impending graduation as an honors student. At the dinner (after the toast to Armida), Frank and Mr. Young engage in a heated argument about immigration that highlights Frank’s emotional habitus of fear and anger. At first, Young is contemptuous of the minutemen and calls them “idiots.” Frank defends the group’s actions: “I’m not a goddamn idiot,” he says. As the conversation becomes heated, the camera cuts intermittently between the two men and the Gonzales family, who nervously but silently observe the debate. Frank’s voice grows more strained and angry as he lambasts “illegal aliens”: “They have to have a revolution in their country. They have to fix their country. I don’t want any American blood shed over Mexico.” As the conversation continues, Frank’s eyes narrow with anger, his voice rises, and he jabs his finger across the table at Young. He bangs on the table, yelling, “I do not give up my goddamn country for nobody.” During Frank’s tirade at the restaurant, the Gonzales family reacts with fear. In a confessional-style interview that is intercut with and at times superimposed as a voiceover on the restaurant scene, Paty recalls, “It really scared me when I saw Frank start banging on the table,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 254

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

255

and I saw his face change so much. He became so tense.” Meanwhile, the camera quickly cuts back and forth between a yelling, red-faced Frank and members of the Gonzales family, who stare at Frank with expressions of shock, discomfort, or fear. In this scene, Frank’s body is obviously overtaken with an affective and emotional response; his skin flushes with blood, his eyes narrow and become focused; he jabs a finger and elevates his voice. At the same time, this affect is captured in very specific emotions that Frank’s comments bespeak. As he clarifies in his own voiceover confessional interview, “America is an ailing body, and the sickness is illegal immigration and all the corruption that accompanies it. Americans, get up and save this country or you will have none.” Frank is driven by feelings of fear, including fear of immigrant “others” as well as fear over the dissolution of the United States. This fear is rooted in threat and is connected to Frank’s anger at immigrants and their supporters; he feels that they are threatening his country and his livelihood. Frank’s fear and anger are connected to his possessive love of the United States, which provided him and his family a new home. These feelings obviously take over Frank’s body in the scene at the restaurant, and appeals to fear suff use his voiceover statement as well. Yet what is interesting is that in spite of this highly emotional and even irrational rhetoric, Frank frames his attitudes about immigration as entirely intellectual and rational. He sees it as a self-evident fact that “America is an ailing body,” and he defends his position as reasonable and thoughtful rather than senseless or foolish (e.g., “I’m not a goddamn idiot”). We can understand this tension by recognizing that, as Brian Massumi argues, fear is the “affective fact” of threat; fear is the way in which threat (the anticipation of danger) is manifested affectively and, ultimately, aggressively: “If we feel a threat, there was a threat. Threat is affectively self-causing,” and thus “any action taken to preempt a threat .  .  . is legitimated by the affective fact of fear, actual facts aside.” We see this connection between threat and fear in Frank’s feelings about immigration. The fear of immigrants and the (affective) anticipation of the purported danger they bring (“bloodshed” and “sickness”) are enough to prove the threat and, in turn, justify his fear. Frank’s fears become (affective) facts that purportedly lead to rational judgments about immigrants’ destructiveness and danger. Frank sees his fear and anger as rationally justified by the affective fact of the threat of “illegal” immigration: he feels a threat, so there is a threat, to which it is only reasonable to respond. A similarly charged scene takes place two weeks into Frank’s thirty days (and about halfway through the episode). The US Senate is debating an immigration

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 255

8/5/15 2:04 PM

256

|

affect and media imagery

bill (the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007) that would provide paths to naturalization for some unauthorized immigrants. Armida, the Gonzaleses’ eldest daughter, invites Frank to attend a march in support of the law. As he walks in the demonstration, Frank becomes increasingly agitated at the signs, chants, and bodies around him. He asks Armida accusingly, “Isn’t that a symbol of revolution? .  .  . That’s what this is, a revolution.” Frank’s body language is tense, and his face reddens as he continues, “They want to stay here, bring their family here, and I am just supposed to shut up and take it.” Although he marches with the immigrant protestors, Frank seems to be experiencing fear and a sense of threat. His bodily reactions seem rooted in anxiety: clenched hands, darting eyes, and an uncontrolled voice. Again, Frank’s anxiety is connected to fear of an immigrant invasion and possessive love of his nation. Later, when the crowd begins to chant “USA, USA,” Frank seems shocked. His eyes widen and his face pales. Suddenly he shakes his head and turns his back on the crowd. As he does so, he states to the camera in a selfassured tone, “They don’t mean that. They don’t mean that. It’s a prop just like all of the American flags they are using. . . . And it’s the end of America, is what it is.” In this scene, Frank’s “turning away from the object of fear also involves turning towards the object of love,” which is why Frank’s fear of the other (in this case, immigrants) works in tandem with, and causes him to seek refuge within, the love of the same/self (in this case, the nation). When the protestors chant “USA!” and wave American flags, Frank seems conflicted at first, perhaps because they seem to betray his emotional habitus and claims of a foreign invasion. Yet he interprets these actions as “props,” as insincere, duplicitous, and thus as further evidence supporting his fear and anger toward immigrants. Again, fear becomes the “affective fact” that determines Frank’s emotional response to the demonstration. In this scene, as in the rest of the episode, Frank works hard to perform, through speech, dress, and demeanor, a predominant “national affect” of a naturalized US citizen. For example, Frank clearly privileges US English as a marker of an immigrant’s worthiness and desire for assimilation. He wears patriotic T-shirts and hats throughout his thirty days. These examples demonstrate Frank’s possessive investment in a specific national affect of the citizen, which he performs sincerely but which he reads as duplicitous in the protestors and as lacking in most immigrants. On day one, as he is driven through East LA to the Gonzaleses’ home, Frank shakes his head at the Spanish signs and bodegas he passes, which validate his fear of an immigrant takeover. He says, “[This is] not the East LA that I knew years ago. Looks to

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 256

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

257

me like I’m in Mexico.” Frank’s privileging of a specific national affect is also evident in his performance of his own immigrant identity. At the beginning of the episode, in an interview before his thirty days with the Gonzales family, he states, “When we came, there was no such thing as asylum or amnesty. . . . We weren’t given any breaks; we just did everything legally, and I am very proud of my father and my mother for having done that.” Later, Armida expresses surprise that Frank is an anti-immigration immigrant (she asks with shock, “So, you’re Cuban?!”). Frank again relies on the narrative of the “good” immigrant and the rule of law: “We are a nation of laws, and it’s very important that we abide by our laws,” he answers her. In these comments, as in his reaction to the protestors, Frank works from naïve conceptions of US immigration law (reflected, for example, in his claims about asylum and amnesty), and ignores the privileged position of Cuban immigrants, especially those who immigrated during the Cold War. In fact, he naturalizes this privilege through the narrative of the “good,” “legal,” and “well-assimilated” immigrant. It might therefore come as a surprise to some viewers that in all of his communication with Paty and Rigoberto, Frank speaks Spanish rather than English. Frank’s use of language provides an interesting example of how the 30 Days episode both reaffirms and troubles conventional affects of citizenship and immigration. On one hand, Frank’s proficiency in Spanish was probably one of the reasons he was chosen by the show’s producers, since it facilitated his interaction with the family and precipitated the show’s plot. We can imagine that it would have been difficult to produce as much dramatic conflict and communication if the main protagonist had been a monolingual English speaker. It is even possible that the Gonzales family knew of Frank’s proficiency in Spanish, as Paty greets Frank on his arrival with “buenas tardes.” On the other hand, Jorge’s use of Spanish problematizes the national affect that he works so hard to perform and with which he is so deeply cathected. His performance of the national affect of the assimilated immigrant, who has surrendered foreign allegiances and embraced the United States, is subtly laced with a marker of “difference” and “foreignness.” In this subtle way, 30 Days’ portrayal of Frank Jorge both stages and disrupts this US national affect, demonstrating a version of the good, assimilated, and patriotic immigrant but also showing that this good immigrant does not hew to expectations of English monolingualism. Frank’s fluency in Spanish provides another example of how the dominant emotional habitus of immigration is both reaffirmed and destabilized by the show.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 257

8/5/15 2:04 PM

258

|

affect and media imagery

As I have argued, the interactions in the first half of the episode are characterized by a dominant emotional habitus surrounding immigration in US public culture. Frank’s feelings about and relationship to his immigrant host family are constituted by fear, anger, and possessive love of the United States of America. The episode suggests that Frank has internalized this habitus, providing a ready resource to interpret events and experiences. Furthermore, Frank’s performance of his own identity, for the most part, solidifies an exclusive and exclusionary national affect of citizenship. Gradually, however, the episode narrates Frank’s emotional journey from anger and fear to empathy, compassion, and love for the Gonzales family. These feelings create problems for Frank, who acknowledges being “pulled apart” by his conflicting emotions. Yet Frank’s conversion from angry minuteman to friend of unauthorized immigrants evokes similar feelings of sympathy and compassion in the viewer. The stickiness of these emotions is enhanced by scenes that humanize the Gonzales family (showing them playing sports, spending family time together, and so on) and illustrate the struggles they face as unauthorized immigrants (they are depicted working hard to make ends meet, for example). The climactic moment in this emotional journey happens on day twentythree, when Frank decides to visit the Gonzaleses’ extended family in Mexico. Frank meets Rigoberto’s brother and parents and views the living conditions that compelled Rigoberto and Paty to emigrate, including the dilapidated old building without running water or electricity that they once called home. The overarching image of Mexico here is one of poverty and privation, which provides evidence for the (neocolonial and exceptionalist) argument that immigrants migrate to the United States because their own countries are broken. When Frank returns to Los Angeles, he brings videos and mementos from the Gonzaleses’ extended family; he becomes their proxy since they cannot visit Mexico themselves. In the narrative, the Mexico trip marks the moment when Frank’s affects and emotions begin to challenge the habitus upon which he has heretofore relied. It is framed as the first in a subsequent series of experiences that disrupt, or “puncture,” Frank’s “dominant emotional habitus,” “inaugurat[ing] a new constellation of feelings, emotions, and emotional postures.” Frank increasingly empathizes and identifies with the Gonzales family, and he states that these new emotions do not fit within his preconceived feelings about immigration. During one confessional interview, for example, Frank notes that his experience in Mexico “brings a new dimension into that dialogue that we have quite often”: “Even though I always imagined that they came from a

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 258

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

259

background of poverty, until you see what they would be going back to, you can’t feel the full impact of everything. . . . It just shows the kind of dilemma that we are in, as human beings who have a heart and who feel for other people. You say to yourself, I want the laws of my country to be enforced. At the same time, you look at what they’re headed to. [Pause] It does have an effect.” Frank’s voice is quiet and subdued, his mouth and eyes are drawn down with concern, and he stares off rather than make eye contact with the camera. He seems to have difficulty communicating, making sense of, or acknowledging his feelings about the experience in Mexico. Now he identifies with the Gonzales family and feels sympathy for the conditions they have left behind and (presumably) would be sent back to if they were deported. Although Frank angrily rebuked immigrants and expressed little sympathy earlier in the episode (“I do not give up my goddamn country for nobody”), now he comments, “I look at the poverty in Mexico, and I can’t blame them for wanting to come here and seek a better life.” He recognizes that these new emotions do not fit within the ways he has trained himself to feel about immigration (e.g., it “has an effect” and creates a “dilemma”—language evocative of affect and affection). In a later scene, Frank and Rigoberto work in a garden. Rigoberto draws Frank’s attention to something in the dirt—a small lizard. The camera focuses on the creature as it scampers away from the men’s tools. While Rigoberto continues to work, Frank pensively looks down at the dirt. It is amazing, he says, that when one is a child one often sees such a creature and one’s first impulse is to kill it because one sees it as an ugly bug. Later, says Frank, when one grows older, one understands and appreciates the preciousness of life, and understands that the creature should be allowed to live in peace. Frank pauses and looks away from the camera, as if surprised by his own insight. Whether or not Frank meant this story as an allegory for his changing feelings about “illegal” immigrants, the editing suggests this. Soft piano music swells, and the scene cuts to the door of a church with a simple black-and-white sign posted on it that reads, “no human being is illegal.” The program then cuts to a commercial break. Similar emotional conversations punctuate the last few days of Frank’s visit. For example, Armida asks Frank if he will return to his minuteman activities. Frank pauses and looks down and his cheeks flush (as if he experiences some shame); he responds, “I am sort of tired of going to the border. It would be very strange at this point in time for me to go to the border.” At his final dinner with the family, Frank tells the Gonzaleses, “What I’ve learned most here was to understand and receive your point of view directly from you.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 259

8/5/15 2:04 PM

260

|

affect and media imagery

Because you can read a book, but a book does not laugh, a book doesn’t cry, a book doesn’t have memories. A book is not a human being. But your circumstances and everything that has happened here, that is a precious opportunity that has been given to me.” The Gonzales family, too, is tearful at their final goodbye, assuring Frank that they see him as a friend. As Frank is driven back to his home, he reflects on these proclamations of friendship: “I will never forget that,” he concludes. The only thing that seems to disrupt this emotional ending is a final title card, which states that although Frank remains a member of the minutemen, he has left border patrolling and plans to pursue border security by appealing directly to politicians; and that Armida is attending a local university while trying to raise money to attend the college of her choice. Affect and emotion are explicitly featured as sources of dramatic conflict throughout the episode (in the multiple emotional arguments between characters), and as overarching effects of the narrative. The emotional conflicts and dialogue, dramatic plot points, and the use of music and cinematography create a narrative of Frank Jorge’s emotional conversion. As I discuss below, much of the response to the episode centered on whether or not Frank had changed his beliefs about immigration. My claim here, however, is that the episode was primarily about the affects of the immigration debate, specifically about the affects associated with Frank’s changing feelings about and friendship with the Gonzaleses. This narrative displayed and disrupted the emotional habitus of fear and anger dramatized in the first half of the episode. By the end of the episode, Frank’s new affects and emotions could become “contagious” for the viewer, providing an opportunity through which the viewer could have a parallel emotional journey. As Frank Jorge learned about the plight of unauthorized immigrants, and came to feel compassion for the Gonzaleses as human beings, the affective energy of the show changed, as did the affective and emotional economy of immigration presented therein (from danger, fear, and threat to compassion, humanity, and love). Similarly, the Gonzales family (in particular Armida, Paty, and Rigoberto) was associated with positive affects and emotions, such as joy, happiness, love, and admiration. Through positive, humanizing images of the family at play and work, and through their kindness to Frank, these unauthorized immigrants were stuck to alternative and more positive affects and emotions than those that predominate in the negative emotional habitus of the broader immigration debate. In essence, the episode worked to humanize immigrants and to make Frank’s positive feelings about them “sticky.”

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 260

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

261

To be clear, my argument is not that the episode persuaded viewers to see the immigration issue differently than they had previously. Nor were viewers necessarily encouraged to identify with Frank Jorge any more than with the Gonzales family. Rather, the show’s primary rhetorical function was to evoke the dominant emotional habitus of immigration and then to puncture that habitus with alternative affects, as they were experienced by Jorge and the Gonzales family. This distinction is important precisely because of the polarized nature of immigration discourse; that is, it is unlikely that viewers (or even Frank Jorge, as we will see below) would change their minds about immigration just by watching the show (in fact, the circulation of the show demonstrates otherwise). To focus on the show through the lens of persuasion or even identification with one or more of the characters is to miss its primary role as a “sticky” text. The important point is that the show cultivated an affective energy about immigration that disrupted the conventional circuits of public feelings about immigrants and immigration. Following Chaput, Diane Davis, Ronald W. Greene, and others, I am reading rhetoric’s persuasive and identificatory power as situated primarily in affective circulation, exchange, and investment. As Chaput explains, “The value of human communication derives from its circulation of affect, a material energy exchanged within and among the many instances of a sign’s lifespan. . . . Affect moves through individuals vis-à-vis discourse, making them more and less energized. Affect can be used to open one’s worldview to other ideas, or it can be used to sustain one’s worldview; it can be life affirming, inspiring new actions in the world, or it can be life constricting, sapping energy and limiting new possibilities.” Rhetorical circulation and exchange identify or stick things to one another (affects to things), which means that they can also disrupt an emotional habitus, unstick certain affects from things, or make other sorts of affects sticky. I am reading the 30 Days episode as productive of such affective exchange. Not only was the dramatic and narrative content of the show itself primarily about affect and emotion, as we have seen, but as a media artifact the episode circulated a conventional emotional habitus of immigration saturated with fear and anger, and then it disrupted this habitus by circulating alternative forms of affective energy, including compassion, love, and happiness. It stuck these more positive affects to the Gonzales family, to Frank Jorge, and to the figure of the immigrant in general, potentially contributing to alternative affective economies. Notwithstanding the many problematic representations in the episode (including its embrace of American exceptionalism and neocolonialism, its portrayals of Mexico as undeveloped, and its elision of Frank’s

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 261

8/5/15 2:04 PM

262

|

affect and media imagery

own immigrant history), the text potentially challenged a dominant emotional habitus of immigration and circulated alternative feelings. Unlike liberal discourses of immigration that generally feature immigrants who undergo emotional conversions, abandoning their “foreign” attachments and embracing our “nation of immigrants,” the 30 Days episode showcased the nativist citizen, the assimilated migrant, undergoing an emotional conversion, embracing migrants, and accepting a different emotional habitus of nationalism and immigration. In other words, not only did 30 Days present humanizing and empathetic portrayals of migrants, but it also showed Frank Jorge letting go of his fear, anger, and possessive love, at least provisionally, to embrace compassion for and identification with migrants. The Gonzales family became “happy objects,” while nativism became an object of unhappiness, or at least emotional turmoil. The minuteman’s nativism and xenophobia were transformed into objects of shame, while the unauthorized migrants were validated and vindicated as objects of love. This presented a partial inversion of the affective economies of threatening, unhappy, unassimilated migrants and happy, helpful, assimilated citizens.

Stickiness and Circulation This argument is partially confirmed by attending to the reception and circulation of the show among its viewers, many of whom celebrated the episode for its compassionate portrayal of the immigration issue. Some called it “riveting,” “fascinating,” and “a tear-jerker,” and others praised the show’s focus on emotional dimensions that are “in short supply” in the “polarized, partisan” immigration debate. One reviewer in the New York Daily News called the show “a sobering experience both for Jorge and the viewer.” An editorial in the Los Angeles Times praised it as “gripping television—not because the protagonists change their views significantly but because we get to watch Jorge register his slow-dawning shock that the same class of people he has pointed guns at can be noble, hardworking, funny, angry, God-fearing, .  .  . and, well, human.” Michael Sciannamea, writing for AOLTV.com, even used language evocative of affect to describe his response to the episode: Frank’s trip to Mexico “really hits you in the gut”; “whatever feelings you may have about the immigrant issue are bound to be somewhat affected.” These commentators support my argument that the show displaced affects of anger and fear, and circulated alternative affects of enjoyment and excitement. Not only did these reviewers

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 262

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

263

reference their own affective responses—they also tried to make sense of these affections through emotional language. In these reactions we see what Brian Massumi calls the levels of intensity and of qualification. “The level of intensity is characterized by a crossing of semantic wires”; it “is embodied in purely autonomic reactions.” Meanwhile, qualification references the signification of the image event, “its indexing to conventional meanings in an intersubjective [and emotional] context.” These two levels correspond roughly to the relationship between affect and emotion discussed above. On one hand, public reactions to the show reflect the intensity of affect—”the experience of having the ground pulled out from under our very feet”—and the sensation of being affected, moved, and partially “decomposed” through the images of others. On the other hand, commentators cognitively and emotionally qualified their experience. Such qualifications blunted the pure intensity of affect, “for the skin is faster than the word.” The commentators’ efforts to make sense of their affective experiences both coincided with and veered off from the affective intensity of the viewing experience. Note that many of them emphasized that the episode fostered feelings of empathy for both Frank Jorge and the Gonzales family. Such public reaction to the show indicates that it provoked affections and alternative emotional economies of immigration, circulating compassion rather than fear, happiness and enjoyment in the place of shame and possessive love, and, perhaps most important, puncturing the dominant emotional habitus of immigration with a “corporeal experience of being-inrelation” to others. Another example of the show’s affective and emotional circulation can be found in discussions on the forums of the DREAM Act Portal, a major website in the student immigrant movement. In several forum threads that developed following the airing of the 30 Days episode, immigrant youths identified with the Gonzaleses and found some emotional comfort in seeing their own experiences and feelings reflected there. Students commented on being moved to tears by Armida’s college aspirations, feeling joy in seeing their cause portrayed positively on national television, and relishing a more compassionate and humanizing portrayal of unauthorized immigrants. Most important, these viewers, like the commentators discussed above, related their own affective experiences upon viewing the show, and referenced its potential to evoke a more positive emotional economy about immigration than is prevalent in mass media. Their reactions demonstrated the intensity of affect and the qualification of that intensity in emotional and cognitive signification. They enjoyed the sociality of affect and the composition of a collective body fostered thereby.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 263

8/5/15 2:04 PM

264

|

affect and media imagery

The show became a conduit and circulator of affective energy and a “nodal point” in an affective economy of immigration and citizenship. Although I have been considering the potential of the 30 Days episode to puncture the dominant emotional habitus of immigration, an alternative perspective on the show’s reception and circulation would seem to undermine this claim. In fact, the controversies and backlash with which it was met demonstrate the ways in which the episode became “stuck” in particular and polarized affects and emotions of immigration, undermining its potential to create an alternative and positive emotional habitus. Even before it aired, controversy surrounded the episode on the basis of claims by Frank Jorge that he had been misrepresented. At a press conference promoting the show, Jorge criticized its producers for making it appear as if he had changed his beliefs. In a public letter posted on the website of the conservative group Latino Americans for Immigration Reform, Jorge accused the producers of 30 Days of “mak[ing] it appear as if I had changed my mind and am in fact in favor of the illegal immigration family of seven staying here and allowing more in.” Jorge claimed that the final scenes of the episode, including his conversations with Armida and the family, had been edited and taken out of context to support the filmmakers’ “loyalty to illegals.” The letter reaffirmed the emotional habitus of anger and fear by, for example, calling Los Angeles “a former USA city that is now a Mexican city,” and characterizing undocumented immigration as an “attack.” While Jorge stated that he grew to love “the illegal alien family .  .  . for their warmth and sincerity,” he concluded, “How could they [the producers] possibly even dare to think that I had changed my mind? Not a chance!” Jorge’s objections caused the episode to be reedited before airing (including the insertion of the final title card mentioned above); after these changes, Jorge endorsed the episode as “must see” and “honest” despite its bias “towards the illegal aliens.” The controversy was covered in press reports, especially in the conservative blogosphere, where questions about the truthfulness of Jorge’s emotional journey provided fuel for the show’s critics. Many seized on Jorge’s criticisms as evidence for the liberal, “pro-illegal alien” bias of the program and of the FX network on which it aired. Others on the political right criticized 30 Days for being “too emotional,” for abandoning reason and objectivity, and for presenting the immigration issue in sympathetic terms. Calling the show “an emotional promotion of immigrant amnesty [with] a dollop of condemnation toward opposing viewpoints,” one conservative commentator objected to the way the show evoked emotion as a means to “shift our attention” from the important considerations

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 264

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

265

of border security and enforcement. Another post on a right-wing immigration blog concluded, Emotions are notoriously not the best guidance on solutions to a problem. Maybe next time they’ll . . . show the realities of illegal immigration. Maybe stick Frank in with a family that has kids who are in [the criminal gang] Mara Salvatrucha or a family that lives in a house with 3 other families and lives off welfare using fraudulent documents. Or maybe a family who espouses Aztlan and reconquista. Let’s put the reality of illegal immigration out there rather than sugar coating it with a very carefully picked family that fits the needs of the bias of the shows makers. Notably, these criticisms relied upon and reaffirmed economies of fear and anger, even disgust, couching them in the language of objectivity and reason. Jorge himself made a similar point, stating, “Emotionally, I felt very divided. I really love these people [the Gonzales family]. It’s a battle between my emotions and my intellect,” but “some of us are fortunate enough to have a good brain, and intellect tempers our emotion.” Jorge, too, framed his feelings during the filming of the episode in opposition to his reasoned and objective anti-immigrant stance. These self-impressions (and objections about the show’s content) could be read as an attempt to rehabilitate Jorge’s image in light of the emotional narrative of 30 Days. In both cases, appeals to objectivity, evidence, and reason—and the gendered, cultural denigration of emotionality—were used to obfuscate highly affective, emotional, and even irrational attitudes about immigrants and immigration. More important, however, these arguments intervened into the nonrational, affective potential of the 30 Days episode by circulating specific affective economies of immigrants and Latinas/os—negative, xenophobic, and racist affective economies that were couched as facts. Thus Jorge’s efforts to recuperate his minuteman image, and the coverage of the episode, demonstrated how the emotional economies surrounding immigration “stuck” the 30 Days episode within the polarized immigration debate, and then became naturalized ideologically through appeals to rationality. The backlash directed against the Gonzales family, particularly against the oldest daughter, represents another important example of how the show was mired in the negative emotional habitus of immigration. One of the subplots of the episode concerned Armida’s college aspirations. After the episode aired, the family set up a website with a PayPal link to collect donations to Armida’s

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 265

8/5/15 2:04 PM

266

|

affect and media imagery

college fund. The response was swift and vitriolic. Word of Armida’s college fund was circulated in a number of right-wing websites and blogs, including the now defunct Immigration Watchdog and the forums of the Latino Americans for Legal Immigration Reform. Many of these sites linked to an anonymous blog entitled “Deport Armedia [sic] and Her Family Now!,” which regularly posted racist attacks and threats against the Gonzales family. After her real last name and personal e-mail address were circulated, harassment of Armida was promoted in many of these online venues. As a result, the “Armida College Fund” website was taken down only a few weeks after the show aired, a point that many celebrated as a victory in the war against “illegal aliens.” This backlash demonstrates the ways in which fear and anger were reasserted as dominant emotions. Responses to the television program by anti-immigrant activists indicate that 30 Days confirmed their existing affective and emotional investments in immigrants as fearful, dangerous, criminal, alien, and so on. Although it was just one specific nodal point in public discourse, the 30 Days episode “Immigration” both challenged and reaffirmed a dominant emotional habitus of immigration defined by threat, fear, anger, and possessive love of one’s country. The episode made Jorge’s compassion and sympathy contagious or, in another metaphor, “sticky” for viewers, and helped to humanize immigrants by indexing an alternative affective economy surrounding the Gonzales family. At the same time, the stickiness of the negative affects surrounding immigration influenced more generally how the TV episode was received; thus public feelings were channeled and mobilized to reaffirm ideologies of immigrants as threats, criminals, and invaders. The show became stuck to and within affects that both challenged and confirmed existing public feelings about immigration in the US national imaginary. Some viewers found the show powerful because of its affective energy, and others condemned it because it was too emotional, demonstrating their own affective investments couched in the language of rationality and “affective fact.” Although it represents one of many such media texts that attempt to humanize immigrants, in the next section I draw some lessons from this particular analysis for the scholarship on immigration rhetoric.

Implications The strong reactions to the 30 Days episode discussed above, both positive and negative, demonstrate the close relationship between public feelings about and

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 266

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

267

ideologies of immigration, identity, and belonging. The show was significant because, unlike media discourses on immigration that alienize and marginalize migrants, the show foregrounded alternative affects and emotions surrounding immigration. As should be obvious, my intent here is not to endorse this particular television episode as a model for immigration discourse. Rather, I have focused on one specific theme of this episode of 30 Days to demonstrate the ways in which affects and emotions both “grease the wheels” of dominant ideologies and hold the potential to “gum them up” with alternative feelings. The “Immigration” episode represented a “sticky” discourse that staged and evoked affect and emotion, challenging a dominant emotional habitus of immigration characterized by anger and fear. At the same time, reactions to the show demonstrated how this dominant emotional habitus became “sticky,” creating blockages to alternative affects and emotions that could have been cultivated by the show. As this volume demonstrates, rhetorical scholars have analyzed a broad range of discourses of immigration in US public culture, with particular emphasis on representational logics, narrative structure, and argument. Yet rhetorics of immigration index a number of powerful affects and emotions, which play an important role in the circulation and purchase of dominant ideologies of immigration and national identity. Future work could benefit by turning attention to these affective and emotional registers of the immigration debate. For scholars of immigration rhetoric, this means moving affect and emotion from implicit to explicit concerns, theorizing how and which affects and emotions animate and subtend immigration rhetoric and ideology. Attention to the affective and emotional registers of immigration discourse would move us from a logic of good or bad representations to consider the complex affective and emotional investments that animate, stick to, and are circulated by any specific discourse. As the preceding analysis suggests, in order to understand the dominant logics and power relationships articulated through any discourse, critical rhetoric scholars would need to focus on the circulation and accrual of affective and emotional value: the sticky symbols, the capture of affect, and the practices which instantiate any specific emotional habitus. Even more, such a project would help us understand how these economies can be interrupted. One of the driving commitments of scholarship on rhetorics of immigration specifically, and critical rhetoric more broadly, has been to challenge restrictive, marginalizing discourses. We see this focus, for example, in recent scholarship on documentary film and TV, which focuses on the

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 267

8/5/15 2:04 PM

268

|

affect and media imagery

“visual and narrative strategies used to make immigrants’ rights arguments,” as alternative rhetorical resources to pro-enforcement arguments. We also see this critical rhetorical focus animating many of the essays in this volume. In this light, my analysis partially explains why recurring attempts to humanize immigrants fail or have limited success. The reason is that anti-immigrant attitudes are deeply invested in affects and emotions, which inhere in relations of power and thus become a dominant emotional habitus. Efforts to humanize immigrants need to extend beyond visual and narrative strategies to circulate alternative affects and to disrupt the emotional habitus of dominant logics. The “goal” would be to “circulate positive affects” so as to dislodge negative and sedimented affects, and to “become more open to the world’s creative potential.” Put simply, public feelings must be instrumental in puncturing, challenging, and rearranging ideologies surrounding immigration and thus are instrumental to a critical rhetorical project. Just as rhetorical circulation and exchange stick things to affects and sediments an emotional habitus, rhetoric and rhetorical criticism could play a crucial role in unsticking or re-sticking the affective and emotional investments that have become congealed through repetition. Every capture of affect into an emotion generates an excess that can be harnessed to challenge accepted ways of feeling and/or emoting. This was arguably the case for those who identified with the 30 Days episode and who, at least momentarily, entertained another way to feel about immigration. This also seems to be true of those immigrant activists who saw in the documentary a validation of their own “outlaw emotions.” The 30 Days episode, albeit problematic in certain aspects, points to important potential avenues by which to understand and disrupt the dominant emotional habitus of the immigration debate. Challenging public feeling, as well as representation and imagination, must be part of contemporary struggles to create a more open and just community.

note s 1. Gregory J. Seigworth and Melissa Gregg, “An Inventory of Shimmers,” in The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010), 1–2. 2. See Patricia Ticineto Clough, “Introduction,” in The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, ed. Patricia Ticineto Clough, with Jean Halley (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), 1–33. Further theorizing the relationship between affect and emotion is outside the purview of this focused essay and has been engaged by many other cultural theorists and philosophers. See, for example, Brian Massumi, “The Autonomy of Affect,” in his Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002), 23–45.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 268

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

269

3. See Clough, Affective Turn. On the rhetorical turn (or return) to affect, see Joshua Gunn and Jenny Edbauer Rice, “About Face/Stuttering Discipline,” Communication and Critical/ Cultural Studies 6 (2009): 215–19; Jenny Edbauer Rice, “The New ‘New’: Making a Case for Critical Affect Studies,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94 (2008): 200–212. 4. See, for example, Catherine Chaput, “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism: Neoliberalism and the Overdetermination of Affective Energy,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43, no. 1 (2010): 1–25; Lynn Clarke, “The Public and Its Affective Problems,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 45, no. 4 (2012): 376–405; D. Robert DeChaine, “Affect and Embodied Understanding in Musical Experience,” Text and Performance Quarterly 22, no. 2 (2002): 79–98; Joshua Gunn, “Hystericizing Huey: Emotional Appeals, Desire, and the Psychodynamics of Demagoguery,” Western Journal of Communication 71, no. 1 (2007): 1–27; Eric S. Jenkins, “Another Punctum: Animation, Affect, and Ideology,” Critical Inquiry 39, no. 3 (2013): 575–91; Christian Lundberg, “Enjoying God’s Death: The Passion of the Christ and the Practices of an Evangelical Public,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 4 (2009): 387–411; Brian L. Ott, “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (2010): 29–54. 5. Lundberg, “Enjoying God’s Death,” 388. 6. Catherine Chaput, “Fear, Affective Energy, and the Political Economy of Global Capitalism,” in Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 9–10. See also Chaput, “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism”; Ronald Walter Greene, “Rhetorical Capital: Communicative Labor, Money/Speech, and Neo-Liberal Governance,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4, no. 3 (2007): 327–31; Melissa Gregg, “Learning to (Love) Labour: Production Cultures and the Affective Turn,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6, no. 2 (2009): 209–14. 7. Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion (New York: Routledge, 2004), 45. 8. Sara Ahmed, “Happy Objects,” in Gregg and Seigworth, Affect Theory Reader, 40. 9. Edbauer Rice, “New ‘New,’” 205. 10. Ahmed, Cultural Politics of Emotion, 59–60. 11. Sara Ahmed, The Promise of Happiness (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010). 12. Lundberg, “Enjoying God’s Death,” 388. 13. J. David Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 133–50. 14. Remember that, although they are distinct modes of perception, affect and emotion are neither purely personal nor entirely social but exist at the intersection of these binaries. Thus affect and emotion are embodied, psychic, and culturally inflected modes of experience. See Clough, “Introduction,” in Clough, Affective Turn; Michael Hardt, “Foreword: What Affects Are Good For,” ibid., ix–xiii. 15. Deborah B. Gould, Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight Against AIDS (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 34. 16. Ibid., 40. 17. For more on this point, see Jenkins, “Another Punctum,” 588–91. 18. Gould, Moving Politics, 21. 19. Bernadette Marie Calafell, Latina/o Communication Studies: Theorizing Performance (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 27. For a summary of this work on rhetoric and immigration, see J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. 20. See Clarke, “Public and Its Affective Problems”; D. Robert DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (2009): 43–65; Zoe Hammer, “The Architecture of Fear: Common Sense and the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall,” in Chaput, Braun, and Brown, Entertaining Fear,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 269

8/5/15 2:04 PM

270

|

affect and media imagery

155–75; Amy J. Wan, “Boundaries of Citizenship: Undocumented Workers and Temporary Work Policies in the United States,” in Chaput, Braun, and Brown, Entertaining Fear, 136–54. 21. See Bernadette Marie Calafell, “Love, Loss, and Immigration: Performative Reverberations Between a Great-Grandmother and Great-Granddaughter,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 151–62; Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’”; Dustin Bradley Goltz and Kimberlee Pérez, “Borders Without Bodies: Affect, Proximity, and Utopian Imaginaries Through ‘Lines in the Sand,’ ” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 151–62; Sara L. McKinnon, “Citizenship and the Performance of Credibility: Audiencing Gender-Based Asylum Seekers in U.S. Immigration Courts,” Text and Performance Quarterly 29, no. 3 (2009): 205–21. 22. See Michael Lechuga, “Affective Boundaries in a Landscape of Shame: Writing HB 56,” Journal of Argumentation in Context 3, no. 1 (2014): 83–101. 23. See, for example, Ted Brader, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay, “What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat,” American Journal of Political Science 52, no. 4 (2008): 959–78; Elaine Lynn-Ee Ho, “Constituting Citizenship Through the Emotions: Singaporean Transmigrants in London,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99, no. 4 (2009): 788–804. 24. Edbauer Rice, “New ‘New,’” 206. See also Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’”; Lechuga, “Affective Boundaries.” 25. For a broader analysis of the rhetoric of immigration in pop culture, see Stacey K. Sowards and Richard D. Pineda, “Immigrant Narratives and Popular Culture in the United States: Border Spectacle, Unmotivated Sympathies, and Individualized Responsibilities,” Western Journal of Communication 77, no. 1 (2013): 72–91. 26. For more on the “docusoap” genre, see John Corner, “Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions,” in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette (New York: New York University Press, 2009), 44–64. 27. Anne Teresa Demo, “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Through the Documentary Lens,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 199. 28. “Immigration,” 30 Days, season 3, episode 1, first broadcast July 26, 2006, 48:49, exec. prod. R. J. Cutler and Jonathan Chinn, available at http://vimeo.com/11155073 (last accessed January 8, 2014) and on the Netflix video streaming service. 29. Brian Massumi, “The Birth of the Affective Fact: The Political Ontology of Threat,” in Gregg and Seigworth, Affect Theory Reader, 52–70. 30. Ibid., 54. 31. Ahmed, Cultural Politics of Emotion, 68. 32. In contrast, Frank speaks English to the Gonzales children, and Armida herself embraces the association of English with assimilation when she identifies her language proficiency as evidence that she is just as much an American as anybody else. 33. Gould, Moving Politics, 39. 34. Chaput, “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism,” 15. See also Diane Davis, “Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are,” RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2008): 123–47; Greene, “Rhetorical Capital”; Eric S. Jenkins and Josue David Cisneros, “Rhetoric and This Crazy Little ‘Thing’ Called Love,” Review of Communication 13, no. 2 (2013): 85–107. 35. For more on these features of the episode, see Jodie Michelle Lawston and Ruben R. Murillo, “The Discursive Figuration of U.S. Supremacy in Narratives Sympathetic to Undocumented Immigrants,” Social Justice 36, no. 2 (2009–10): 38–53. 36. I should note that the format of reality television and the docusoap genre certainly encourage the types of confessional and emotional-conversion narratives highlighted here. See Corner, “Performing the Real.” However, my argument is not focused on the generic format of reality programming because this has already been the topic of substantial research by media scholars, and, more important, because my goal in this chapter is to analyze this particular media text and its circulation to understand how they indexed the affective and emotional reg-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 270

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

271

isters of immigration discourse. For more on the generic elements of reality TV, see Murray and Ouellette, Reality TV. 37. Ahmed, Promise of Happiness, 138–48. Cf. Lechuga, “Affective Boundaries.” 38. Dallas Morning News, “‘30 Days’ to Change a Mind,” July 29, 2006; Erin White, “ ‘30 Days’ Returns with Cuban Minuteman, Bangalore Worker,” Arizona Daily Star, July 26, 2006. 39. David Hinckley, “Breaking Down the Borders, ‘30 Days’ of Life with ‘Illegals,’ ” New York Daily News, July 26, 2006, 82. 40. Los Angeles Times, “They’re People Too,” July 26, 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/ 2006/jul/26/opinion/ed-minutemen26, accessed January 12, 2013. 41. Michael Sciannamea, “30 Days: Immigration,” July 27, 2006, http://www.aoltv.com/ 2006/07/27/30-days-immigration-season-premiere, accessed January 8, 2015. See also Alessandra Stanley, “A New Age of News and Views,” New York Times, July 26, 2006. 42. Massumi, Parables for the Virtual, 24–25. 43. Jenny Edbauer, “Executive Overspill: Affective Bodies, Intensity, and Bush-in-Relation,” Postmodern Culture 15, no. 1 (2004), available at http://0-muse.jhu.edu.ilsprod.lib.neu.edu/journals/ postmodern_culture/v015/15.1edbauer.html. 44. Massumi, Parables for the Virtual, 25. 45. Edbauer, “Executive Overspill,” unpaginated. 46. Frank Jorge, “An Email to the American People from a Minuteman That Lived with Illegal Aliens for Thirty Days,” Latino Americans for Immigration Reform, July 17, 2006, http://www.latinoamericans.org/30days.htm, accessed January 13, 2013. (Although this site is no longer active, the page can still be accessed through the Internet archive at http://archive .org/web/.) Notice that Jorge refers to the family throughout the letter in a dehumanizing way, only as “the illegal alien family” rather than by their pseudonyms or first names. 47. Ellen Gray, “‘30 Days,’ Trying to Bridge the Gap,” Philadelphia Daily News, August 9, 2006; Amy Taxin, “‘30 Days’: The Minutemen Meet Reality TV,” Orange County Register, July 23, 2006, http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/jorge-151290-immigration-political.html, accessed January 13, 2013. Though it was less common, some activists criticized Frank Jorge himself as a traitor because of his sympathy for “illegal aliens.” See the comments section of “ ‘30 Days’ Distorts Minuteman Reality,” ImmigrationWatchdog.com, July 23, 2006, http://web .archive.org/web/20060813071931/http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=1572, accessed January 13, 2013. 48. Jonathan Garthwaite, “Become a Liberal in 30 Days,” Townhall.com, July 28, 2006, http://townhall.com/columnists/jonathangarthwaite/2006/07/28/become_a_liberal_in_30_ days/page/full/, accessed January 13, 2013. 49. Dan Amato, “Morgan Spurlock’s 30 Days on Illegal Immigration,” Diggers Realm, July 27, 2006, http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001764.html, accessed January 14, 2013. 50. Quoted in Cristina Costantini, “U.S. Border Patrol Officers Encounter Emotional Paradox,” Huffington Post, September 7, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/ compassion-in-the-ranks-us-border-patrol-officers_n_950927.html, accessed January 13, 2013. 51. As mentioned above, there are problematic portrayals of Mexico in the show. Also, by situating the narrative within a conventional heterosexual nuclear family, 30 Days stuck these cultural forms with positive affects and further normalized them. Finally, in keeping with the genre of reality television, the show at times evoked “unmotivated sympathy” for the Gonzales family by portraying their struggles in a sympathetic light but largely eliding the question of structural political change. See Sowards and Pineda, “Immigrant Narratives and Popular Culture.” 52. Gould, Moving Politics, 27–28. 53. Demo, “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration,” 199. See also Brian L. Ott and Diane Marie Keeling, “Transborder Politics: The Embodied Call of Conscience in Traffic,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 181–96.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 271

8/5/15 2:04 PM

272

|

affect and media imagery

54. Chaput, “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism,” 21. See also Jenkins, “Another Punctum,” 588–91. 55. Gould, Moving Politics, 41.

bibl io gr a ph y Ahmed, Sara. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Happy Objects.” In The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 29–51. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. ———. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Brader, Ted, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay. “What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat.” American Journal of Political Science 52, no. 4 (2008): 959–78. Calafell, Bernadette Marie. Latina/o Communication Studies: Theorizing Performance. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. ———. “Love, Loss, and Immigration: Performative Reverberations Between a Great-Grandmother and Great-Granddaughter.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 151–62. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Chaput, Catherine. “Fear, Affective Energy, and the Political Economy of Global Capitalism.” In Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown, 1–22. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. ———. “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism: Neoliberalism and the Overdetermination of Affective Energy.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43, no. 1 (2010): 1–25. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. ———. “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 133–50. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Clarke, Lynn. “The Public and Its Affective Problems.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 45, no. 4 (2012): 376–405. Clough, Patricia Ticineto, with Jean Halley, eds. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Corner, John. “Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.” In Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 44–64. New York: New York University Press, 2009. Costantini, Cristina. “U.S. Border Patrol Officers Encounter Emotional Paradox.” Huffington Post, September 7, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/compassion-in -the-ranks-us-border-patrol-officers_n_950927.html. Dallas Morning News. “ ‘30 Days’ to Change a Mind.” July 29, 2006. Davis, Diane. “Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are.” RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2008): 123–47. DeChaine, D. Robert. “Affect and Embodied Understanding in Musical Experience.” Text and Performance Quarterly 22, no. 2 (2002): 79–98. ———. “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (2009): 43–65. Demo, Anne Teresa. “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Through the Documentary Lens.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 272

8/5/15 2:04 PM

affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric

|

273

Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 197–212. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Edbauer, Jenny. “Executive Overspill: Affective Bodies, Intensity, and Bush-in-Relation.” Postmodern Culture 15, no. 1 (2004). https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pmc/v015/15.1edbauer .html. Edbauer Rice, Jenny. “The New ‘New’: Making a Case for Critical Affect Studies.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94, no. 2 (2008): 200–212. Goltz, Dustin Bradley, and Kimberlee Pérez. “Borders Without Bodies: Affect, Proximity, and Utopian Imaginaries Through ‘Lines in the Sand.’ ” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 151–62. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Gould, Deborah B. Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight Against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Gray, Ellen. “ ‘30 Days,’ Trying to Bridge the Gap.” Philadelphia Daily News, August 9, 2006. Greene, Ronald Walter. “Rhetorical Capital: Communicative Labor, Money/Speech, and NeoLiberal Governance.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4, no. 3 (2007): 327–31. Gregg, Melissa. “Learning to (Love) Labour: Production Cultures and the Affective Turn.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6, no. 2 (2009): 209–14. Gunn, Joshua. “Hystericizing Huey: Emotional Appeals, Desire, and the Psychodynamics of Demagoguery.” Western Journal of Communication 71, no. 1 (2007): 1–27. Gunn, Joshua, and Jenny Edbauer Rice. “About Face/Stuttering Discipline.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6, no. 2 (2009): 215–19. Hammer, Zoe. “The Architecture of Fear: Common Sense and the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall.” In Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown, 155–75. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Hardt, Michael. “Foreword: What Affects Are Good For.” In The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, ed. Patricia Ticineto Clough, with Jean Halley, ix–xiii. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Hinckley, David. “Breaking Down the Borders: ‘30 Days’ of Life with ‘Illegals.’ ” New York Daily News, July 26, 2006. Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee. “Constituting Citizenship Through the Emotions: Singaporean Transmigrants in London.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99, no. 4 (2009): 788–804. Jenkins, Eric S. “Another Punctum: Animation, Affect, and Ideology.” Critical Inquiry 39, no. 3 (2013): 575–91. Jenkins, Eric S., and Josue David Cisneros. “Rhetoric and This Crazy Little ‘Thing’ Called Love.” Review of Communication 13, no. 2 (2013): 85–107. Lawston, Jodie Michelle, and Ruben R. Murillo. “The Discursive Figuration of U.S. Supremacy in Narratives Sympathetic to Undocumented Immigrants.” Social Justice 36, no. 2 (2009–10): 38–53. Lechuga, Michael. “Affective Boundaries in a Landscape of Shame: Writing HB 56.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 3, no. 1 (2014): 83–101. Los Angeles Times. “They’re People Too.” July 26, 2006. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/26/ opinion/ed-minutemen26. Lundberg, Christian. “Enjoying God’s Death: The Passion of the Christ and the Practices of an Evangelical Public.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 4 (2009): 387–411. Massumi, Brian. “The Birth of the Affective Fact: The Political Ontology of Threat.” In The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 52–70. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. ———. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 273

8/5/15 2:04 PM

274

|

affect and media imagery

McKinnon, Sara L. “Citizenship and the Performance of Credibility: Audiencing Gender -Based Asylum Seekers in U.S. Immigration Courts.” Text and Performance Quarterly 29, no. 3 (2009): 205–21. Murray, Susan, and Laurie Ouellette, eds. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. 2nd ed. New York: New York University Press, 2009. Ott, Brian L. “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27, no. 1 (2010): 29–54. Ott, Brian L., and Diane M. Keeling. “Transborder Politics: The Embodied Call of Conscience in Traffic.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 181–96. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Sciannamea, Michael. “30 Days: Immigration.” AOLTV, July 27, 2006. http://www.aoltv .com/2006/07/27/30-days-immigration-season-premiere, accessed January 8, 2015. Seigworth, Gregory J., and Melissa Gregg. “An Inventory of Shimmers.” In The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 1–25. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Sowards, Stacey K., and Richard D. Pineda. “Immigrant Narratives and Popular Culture in the United States: Border Spectacle, Unmotivated Sympathies, and Individualized Responsibilities.” Western Journal of Communication 77, no. 1 (2013): 72–91. Stanley, Alessandra. “A New Age of News and Views.” New York Times, July 26, 2006. Taxin, Amy. “ ‘30 Days’: The Minutemen Meet Reality TV.” Orange County Register, July 23, 2006. http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/jorge-151290-immigration-political.html. Wan, Amy J. “Boundaries of Citizenship: Undocumented Workers and Temporary Work Policies in the United States.” In Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control, ed. Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun, and Danika M. Brown, 136–54. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. White, Erin. “ ‘30 Days’ Returns with Cuban Minuteman, Bangalore Worker.” Arizona Daily Star, July 26, 2006.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 274

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword Tracking the “Shifting Borders” of Identity and Otherness; Productive Complications and Ethico-Political Commitments D. Robert DeChaine

Perhaps no other issue is more pressing in our time than the need to come to grips with our incessant, often violent penchant for social division. Discussing how the process of human symbolization involves the simultaneous directing, reflecting, and deflecting of psychosocial attentions, Kenneth Burke observed in his 1935 book Permanence and Change that “a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing” insofar as “a focus upon object A involves a neglect of object B.” Burke’s seemingly innocuous but crucial observation orients us to an understanding of how cultural collectivities negotiate what he referred to in his subsequent work as the identification/division dialectic—symbols are deployed by groups as markers of both unity and difference, and those deployments reflect deeply entrenched, often fraught ideological commitments. “Identification,” he later asserted, “is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division. . . . Identification is compensatory to division.” We define who “we” are in terms of who we proclaim we are not. Our us, as Burke reminds, is always created in relation to a designated them. As I began to conceptualize in my own work what would become an interest in the rhetorical power of “the border” in human social life, I came to see how tracking symbolic expressions of identity and difference reveals valuative frameworks, entire worldviews, ways of seeing and not seeing other people. Moreover, I came to recognize how rhetorical ascriptions of difference involve often concerted, sometimes panicked labor to define and shore up identities, delineate limits of inclusion, and prescribe normative social statuses. In 2010, I was fortunate to mobilize an esteemed group of rhetorical scholars to explore these issues. Our research materialized in 2012 as a volume entitled Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier. In the volume, we

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 275

8/5/15 2:04 PM

276

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

collectively engaged in a critical investigation of rhetorical bordering processes and practices as a basis for understanding public attitudes about citizenship, identity, migrants, and immigration, a project that I referred to in the volume as “rhetorical border studies.” As the contributors to Border Rhetorics elucidated, rhetoric figures instrumentally in the production of otherness, (re)defining what Kent Ono and John Sloop refer to as the “shifting borders” of civic identities. Indeed, I believe that Ono and Sloop’s metaphor of “shifting borders” signals a central problematic of our historical present; moreover, I suggest that it can serve rhetoricians to productively complicate traditional notions of citizenship, identity, immigration, and community. In The Rhetorics of US Immigration, Johanna Hartelius and her contributors— a number of whom also contributed essays to the Border Rhetorics volume— richly extend the scholarly discourse on immigration and border rhetorics. As Hartelius and her authors contend, rhetorical practices bear upon a variety of complex, value-laden community formations. Such formations constitute consequential immigration rhetorics, which in turn fuel public debate, spur legislation, and ultimately define the terms of identity and otherness in the United States today. The book compellingly demonstrates that a great variety of communication-centered processes and practices—social-political activism, mobilizations of migrant collectivities, historical dynamics of public memory, performances of migrant subjectivities, the role of affect and emotion in constructions and perceptions of identities, and mediated representations of migrants and immigration—all assume form and force in society as powerful immigration rhetorics (in the plural). Interrogating such processes and practices, the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration both highlight and, significantly, complicate understandings of identity in the United States today. By virtue of its productive complications, Hartelius’s volume underscores the value of a project invested in a critical engagement with the shifting rhetorical borders of immigration discourse. In the remainder of this afterword, I offer an orientation for appraising the contribution of this volume to such a project. I begin by considering two of its mobilizing keywords—community and immigration—and their utility for explaining, critiquing, and problematizing the production of US social imaginaries. Each of these terms is a polyvalent and contentious signifier in our contemporary public vocabulary. And each, I suggest, is productively complicated by the authors in The Rhetorics of US Immigration, inviting potentially fruitful openings for future study. I conclude by offering my own attempt to productively complicate the volume’s conceptual project. Drawing upon a pre-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 276

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

277

vious, co-authored essay, I exhort researchers who study immigration and borders to adopt what I describe as ethico-political commitments to critique, agency, embodiment, and praxis. My hope is that my incitement to the adoption of these motivating stances might serve as a provocation to further extend the project mobilized in Border Rhetorics and advanced in The Rhetorics of US Immigration.

Complicating Community A project invested in studying the rhetorical formation of community is daunting from the outset. As one of the most ubiquitous keywords in AngloEuropean culture, definitions and meanings of community are both highly subjective and hotly contested. Interestingly, as Raymond Williams observes in his book Keywords, the term “community” generally exudes a “warmly persuasive” glow. “Unlike all other terms of social organization,” Williams notices, the word “seems never to be used unfavourably, and never to be given any positive opposing or distinguishing term.” As an ideologically charged word, “community” evokes feelings of belonging, unity, presence, and wholeness. Its persuasive warmth may indeed account for its long history as a potent ideograph in US political discourse. After all, how many actions, sometimes violent and destructive, have been undertaken in the name of “community”? And who would publicly proclaim themselves to be “anti-community”? A number of key features demonstrate the complexity of community as a social, and socializing, concept. First, owing to its ideological character, any definition of community functions hegemonically. What “properly” constitutes a particular community, who belongs and does not belong to it, and how the community is to be maintained are all questions that are subject to contestation. The answer to each of these questions depends upon a successful persuasive appeal to a particular definition of community. As such, all struggles over community are, to an important extent, rhetorical struggles. Furthermore, because it is an object of hegemonic struggle, adherence to a particular conception of community—its “ownership”—is always precarious; it must be won and re-won through an ongoing process of negotiation with, and consent to, the prevailing ideologies of a social-cultural formation. How “community” is defined, then, largely determines what a community is and can be. Whether taking shape physically or virtually, a community is both a rhetorical and a material formation. Resonant with Michael Calvin McGee’s

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 277

8/5/15 2:04 PM

278

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

conception of “the people,” a community is “conjured into objective reality,” is given its form and force, through rhetorical practices. Moreover, following Robert Asen’s conceptualization of citizenship as “conditioned by social status, relations of power, institutional factors, and material constraints,” a community is likewise a dynamic, power-laden discursive enactment. Because it is not only rhetorically constructed but also enacted in and through discourse, community is both performative and affective. Absent human action, a community does not exist. It has to be made, materialized, given its sense of substance and stability. Community making involves the circulation of affects that can produce intense feelings of identification, unity, and what Victor Turner describes as communitas, as well as equally intense feelings of division, repulsion, and fear of those not in the community. And because conceptions of community must be constantly (re)crafted, (re)enacted, and (re)won, community discourses are premised upon a need for regulatory mechanisms and practices. As with other socially constructed frames for human belonging such as citizenship and culture, a community is not only bounded, but it also requires border guards—modes of protection from potential breach. Communities are not only extolled as positive forms of belonging; they must also be policed and safeguarded by that which lies beyond their borders. Emic/etic and us/them binaries are abundantly evident in imaginings of and struggles over community. All of this is to say that every instantiation of “community” constitutes a fraught, power-laden border rhetoric. Thus, in spite of, or perhaps because of its connotative warmth as a cultural signifier, “community” is deceptively complex. Indeed, scholars working within and across a number of disciplines regularly gloss its polysemic character and accept its meaning uncritically. However, as the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration underscore, the rhetoric of community cannot and must not be taken at face value. Community is a polyvalent signifier, and as such, rhetoricians should work to complicate its “warmly persuasive” allure. In a number of the chapters, the authors reveal how language serves as both a mobilizing and a disrupting force for questioning the constitutive requirements of an imagined American community. From Claudia Anguiano’s examination of DREAMers’ attempts to rhetorically refigure terms of citizenship, to Jay Childers’s study of Theodore Roosevelt’s delineation of proper Americanness through his rhetorical negotiation of migrant subjectivity, to Alessandra B. Von Burg’s analysis of how community identifications are enacted through personal narrative, the authors show how dominant and vernacular rhetorics belie reductive conceptions of community, identity, and belonging.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 278

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

279

As I suggested earlier, hegemonic struggles to define communities rely on a variety of agencies for the regulation of their boundaries and constituents. Several of the chapters, including Terence Check and Christine Jasken’s analysis of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency’s “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” campaign, and Anne Teresa Demo’s analysis of rhetorical appeals in the Strangers No Longer pastoral letter, demonstrate how dominant cultural institutions such as popular media, the family, schools, and the church function as border guards and border mediators through rhetorical appeals to a community’s central belief structure. These chapters and others illustrate how discourses that shape particular understandings of community can be challenged, short-circuited, and perhaps transcended through specific, ideologically charged appeals. As a supplement to a social imaginary, every community is a constitutive fiction; that is, it is performatively enacted through an economy of discursive acts and affective energies. Emily Ironside and Lisa Corrigan highlight the performative aspects of American community as it has been historically crafted through the narrative of “exclusionary nationalism,” a border rhetoric premised on a majoritarian construction of the abject, inassimilable nonAmerican. Furthermore, as J. David Cisneros reveals in his examination of the 30 Days television episode and its surrounding discourse, communities are both invented and materialized through affective and emotional investments. As Cisneros compellingly argues, attending to the powerful influence of experience in public immigration discourse provides a means for rhetorical scholars both to understand and to challenge public feeling as it shapes the contours of the US American community. Perhaps the most powerful motivation for individuals and collectivities in their imaginings of community is a quest for what Burke describes as the human impulse for communion, a form of experience involving “the interdependence of people through their common stake in both cooperative and symbolic networks.” The recognition of a “common stake” and the need for “interdependence,” however, can just as easily function as an alibi for shoring up borders, acts of abjection, and public fear-mongering. Community, like other ideographs, is deeply affective; and often, so are its rhetorical appeals. Thus, while the polysemic and polyvalent character of community can never be reconciled, rhetorical studies, as the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration show, is in an excellent position to hold the binarizing, bordering appeals made on behalf of “community” up to the light of critical reflection, thereby complicating the shifting rhetorical borders of immigration rhetorics.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 279

8/5/15 2:04 PM

280

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

Complicating Immigration If a complicating critique of “community” reveals its ongoing relevance as a site of rhetorical struggle, perhaps no keyword in the US American vocabulary underscores more emphatically the consequentiality of that struggle than “immigration.” Framed most often as a problem in contemporary US society, immigration and its attendant symbolism animate some of our most enduring national conversations about the formative values, institutions, populations, modes of conduct, and boundaries constitutive of American community. “Immigration,” as Ono and Sloop recognize, is among the nation’s key ideographs, wielded as both a god and devil term, and handily conscripted to serve any number of enthymematic ends. As Hartelius astutely observes in her introduction, immigration rhetoric functions epistemically, insofar as “knowledge claims in reference to immigration become normative.” Immigration rhetoric establishes what we know about immigration and migrants. In and through it, we make sense of, and tell truths about, people, places, and social statuses. In the historical present, immigration is implicitly and explicitly linked to conceptions of citizenship and identity. To be a migrant in the United States today is to inhabit a particular subject position in the civic imaginary, a contingent subjectivity constructed to a great extent through rhetorical practices. Two dominant narratives have historically shaped the trajectory of public attitudes about immigration and migrants. The “nation of immigrants” narrative has served as a primary ground for our avowal of an inclusive, diverse, and democratic society. Our regard for migrants, we proclaim, contributes to our exceptional status among nations. And, to varying degrees, this rhetorical construction has generated legitimacy, self-esteem, and empowerment to migrant individuals and populations. At the same time, because citizenship is explicitly defined in juridical terms, and because citizenship status is implicitly linked to social status (itself a reflection of dominant discourses of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic class), public perceptions of immigration and migrants have been profoundly complicated by a second, countervailing narrative. While its permutations have developed and persisted for nearly two centuries, in recent years this second narrative has materialized in various forms: as a blanket warning against the potential scourge of “illegals,” the rhetorical shorthand for implicitly brown, undocumented (and thus inherently criminal) border crossers; as a lamentation of an imputed dilution of American culture; as a threat to national security, health, and public safety;

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 280

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

281

as an impediment to the adoption of English as the official US American language; and as a drain on economic resources and a burden on taxpaying American citizens. Each version of the narrative both constructs and reflects current understandings of immigration. And each construction bears directly or indirectly upon the civic identity—the proper place—of the migrant in US society. As an effect of the circulation of these two dominant narratives, “immigration” continues to mark a profound ambivalence in the US civic imaginary. As Hartelius rightly asserts, owing to a concomitant interiorizing and exteriorizing of migrant subjectivities in US discourse, the dominant “nation of immigrants” mythos problematizes public understandings of immigration, “complicating efforts to address its challenges.” That said, as a result of the post-9/11 ramp-up of “antiterrorism” and “safe neighborhoods” laws, the steadily increased militarization of the US-Mexico border, and proliferating media representations of the potentially dangerous border crosser, the countervailing immigration narrative has gained considerable ground. Indeed, fear of the border-crossing migrant continues to fuel racism, nativism, xenophobia, retrograde laws and policies, and physical violence across the country. Alternately, and significantly, the narrative also provides the exigence for an emergent, diverse social movement whose participants espouse tolerance, nonviolent civil disobedience, legal reform, political representation, and cultural recognition for migrants both documented and undocumented. Current attitudes about migrants and immigration are thus deeply influenced by and fraught with the dueling rhetorics that figure instrumentally in the crafting of the US American community. The contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration are well attuned to the consequentiality of “immigration,” and they work on many fronts to both explicate and complicate its constructions. Several key themes arise out of the tensions between competing immigration rhetorics, each of which bears upon the dialectics of identity and otherness that the volume is concerned to explore. A dominant theme is representation: how are migrants defined, framed, and positioned as intelligible social subjects? What rhetorical processes and practices are involved in migrant representation, both as it is enacted within migrant-centered collectivities and as it is constructed by the dominant culture? A number of the contributors productively engage these questions, revealing how the cultural politics of representation materializes in particular sites. In her analysis of petitioners’ rhetorical efforts on behalf of detained LGBT migrants, for example, Karma Chávez demonstrates how, and with

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 281

8/5/15 2:04 PM

282

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

what implications, migrant subjectivities are shaped by discursive normativities. Dina Gavrilos’s study of immersion-based bilingual-education programs reveals how dominant ideologies underpin rhetorical constructions of migrants and delineate hierarchies of social and cultural privilege. And Ironside and Corrigan’s study traces how fear appeals have historically shaped representations of migrants in the United States, explicating how “AngloSaxon leaders legalized rhetorical systems of exclusion through policy in order to reinforce their established dominance within an increasingly homogeneous national narrative.” Ironside and Corrigan’s analysis throws light on the powerful border rhetoric that underwrites national attitudes about the migrant Other. Indeed, their argument resonates deeply with David Newman’s observation that “Borders exist in our mind by virtue of the fear we have of the unknown of the ‘there’ and which, in turn, causes us to stay on our side of the border in the ‘here.’ ” In a hypermediated world marked by the ascendant power of the public screen, media representations of migrants figure crucially in the fashioning, and the bordering, of the civic imaginary. Functioning as an ideological state apparatus, the popular media industries participate with media users in the hegemonic production of social knowledge about migrants: what they look like, how they act, what they believe, and where they belong. And, of course, this epistemic production is rhetorical through and through. The chapters by Michael Lechuga and Cisneros focus specifically on how televisual and filmic discourse mediates popular perceptions of alienized migrant identities. In his analysis, Lechuga convincingly demonstrates how cinematic conventions and popular ideologies collude in the rhetorical identification/division of the Patriotic Citizen and the Alien Other. Augmenting a text-centered tradition of rhetorical criticism, Cisneros complements his study of the 30 Days episode with audience reception analysis, focusing on how viewers’ reactions to the episode mired, and neutralized, potentially transformative representations of migrants within traditional dominant discourses. Both authors demonstrate the weighty implications of dominant media representations and their entrenchment in public culture. Both suggest, however, that beyond destructive images and border rhetorics lies a horizon of re-presentational politics, a space for the refiguring and respecting of selves and others. Implicated in the politics of representation are questions concerning agency and legitimacy. How are migrants rhetorically enabled and constrained in their enactments of personhood, identity, citizenship, and politics? How do such productive and limiting factors contribute to the (de)legitimation of migrants,

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 282

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

283

and how do hegemonic struggles over migrant legitimacy shape public perceptions of immigration? Both Anguiano and Yazmin Lazcano-Pry consider how these issues intersect in the dominant and vernacular rhetorics of Latina/o migrant youth. In her analysis, Anguiano teases out attendant tensions in “promigrant campaigns to illustrate how activists have transformed language and the normative values attached to it in their efforts to confront anti-immigrant opposition.” Her focus on the rhetorical shift by young activists away from reliance on the delegitimizing language of illegality toward an empowering symbolism espoused by DREAMers illuminates the terministic function of language and its bearing on individual and collective agency. Lazcano-Pry likewise considers how agency is both enabled and constrained through rhetorical choices. In her analysis of the Documented Dreams project, comprising thank-you letters by undocumented youths to their financial benefactors, Lazcano-Pry locates a tension in the students’ reliance on a normative “model citizen” narrative. Her concern “to complicate an understanding of citizenship that too simplistically relies on the familiar binaries of insiders/outsiders, legitimate/illegal, victims/invaders, [and] experts/subordinated actors” dovetails with the critical ambitions of rhetorical border studies and its investment in the debunking of symbolic bordering practices. Two additional themes are salient in the authors’ efforts to productively complicate rhetorics of immigration. One that is too often neglected by rhetorical scholars concerns embodiment, that is, the place of the (individual, collective, affective) body in the production of migrant subjectivity. Several of the volume’s chapters take up this important constituent of immigration and border rhetorics, variously exploring the influence of visceral, sensual experience in immigration discourse, the significance of embodied memory (Von Burg), the collective affect of pro-migrant activists (Anguiano), and the power of “emotional habitus” (Cisneros) in producing and transforming structures of belief. In addition to the theme of embodiment, a second key theme emerges in The Rhetorics of US Immigration, albeit more implicitly than explicitly. In her introduction, Hartelius announces the volume’s primary intention to analyze immigration “as a rhetorical process inventing persons and communities with respect to space and place.” Implicated in such a spatial-platial conception of immigration is the issue of mobility, or more precisely, differential mobilities as they bear upon migrants’ political, economic, social, and cultural positioning in the US civic imaginary. Hartelius asserts that, “as an immigrant, you are defined by your movement from one place to another. . . . Indeed, you are less

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 283

8/5/15 2:04 PM

284

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

defined by your movement than constructed by the cultural circumstances of your departure and arrival.” In her chapter, Von Burg proceeds from Hartelius’s orientation to consider how migrant narratives function as (his)stories of mobility—a rhetorical refiguration that acknowledges invention and memory as powerful resources for repositioning citizens and noncitizens “not merely as people who share a story of mobility but as people who can imagine new ways to live together.” Von Burg’s essay beckons rhetorical scholars to deepen an analysis of how differential mobilities are discursively and affectively deployed to define, connect, and divide individuals and collectivities.

Further Complications: The Ethico-Politics of Studying Immigration Rhetorics The scholarship mobilized in The Rhetorics of US Immigration advances a project that takes seriously the architectonics of rhetoric in imagining, producing, maintaining, regulating, and challenging meanings of identity and otherness in the United States today. The authors’ complication of the formative symbolism of community and immigration deepens our understanding of how borders of citizenship and identity shift figurally, and how such shifts produce very real effects on those whose lives and livelihoods are affected by bordering practices. Moreover, the authors’ work provides ample openings for future research that explores how borders are constructed and enacted. In light of these advances, The Rhetorics of US Immigration both enjoins and extends scholarship in rhetorical border studies. In this final section, I want to briefly outline what I consider an additional, necessary complication of such a project. In a previous essay, Antonio Tomas De La Garza, Kent Ono, and I contended that scholars who take the rhetorical production of borders seriously bear an equally serious responsibility to those in whose name their scholarship is undertaken. What follows is my rendition of our general argument. The overriding conviction implied by such a scholarly stance is that the responsibility is ultimately ethico-political, because studying immigration and border rhetorics involves, or should involve, an orientation toward a horizon of social justice, a motivation that presses beyond mere explanation to a critical engagement with discourses of power. For this reason, responsible research first demands an underlying commitment to critique. A critical commitment directs attention to the powerful

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 284

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

285

material effects of rhetorical practices, and entreats scholars to work against the violence that results from othering acts. A second scholarly commitment issues from a recognition that the practice of producing identity and otherness likewise produces constraints on human action. In contemporary US society, “immigration” describes a condition whereby persons and collectivities experience limited opportunities to participate in the making of their futures. In the United States, the ascendant discursive formation produces civic identities according to a racialized, juridical hierarchy of (il)legitimacy that rewards and punishes migrant subjects based upon an imputed (lack of) fitness for citizenship. Moreover, as many of the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration elucidate, rhetoric is instrumental in the discursive production of civic identity, shaping public understandings of the True American through symbolic ascriptions of sameness and difference. Rhetorical scholars engaging in a critique of immigration and borders are thus impelled to examine how human agency is both enabled and constrained in and through symbolic enactments of the identification/division dialectic. In addition to ethico-political commitments to critique and agency, a third scholarly commitment acknowledges that the production of the migrant citizen-subject is both discursive and material, and as such, that it is enacted in and on human bodies. Immigration rhetorics are not merely symbolic, nor are social statuses simply labels conferred upon individuals. They are produced through affects, emotions, and embodied experience. Moreover, public perceptions of migrants, as Cisneros compellingly argues in this volume and elsewhere, are profoundly shaped by dominant, tenacious, morally charged emotional investments. For these reasons, researchers are called to a focus on embodiment, that is, an attention to the affective, material dimensions of “immigrant” as a lived social category. Finally, an ethico-political study of immigration, identity, and otherness entails a commitment to praxis—a concerted effort to link our scholarship with a project of public pedagogy. Too often, rhetoricians are content to limit theorization, research, and analysis to the confines of the academy, with scant effort to render insights available and accessible to nonscholarly publics. This situation amounts to a missed opportunity for potentially broadening the impact of our work. More important, it does a disservice to the individuals and groups about and for whom we write. To aspire to praxis is to adhere to a belief in a better world, and to hold to a conviction that our intellectual work might

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 285

8/5/15 2:04 PM

286

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

make a difference in that world. If our individual and collective goal is to produce work that matters, we owe it to those who motivate us to that work to find ways to suff use our ethical and political commitments as scholars with a challenge to traditional conceptions of what, and where, engaged scholarship can happen. My effort to complicate rhetorical scholarship on US immigration rhetorics with ethico-political commitments to critique, agency, embodiment, and praxis is intended not as a challenge to the work of the contributors to The Rhetorics of US Immigration. To the contrary, I have hoped to incite rhetorical scholars to continue the important research that Hartelius and her authors have undertaken in their own productive complications of identity and otherness. To return once again to Ono and Sloop’s contention, rhetoric shifts borders. And, in its critical rendition, the rhetorical study of bordering practices attunes us to the complexity, and the dead seriousness, of the identification/ division dialectic. Enjoining and extending a focus initiated by scholars such as Ono and Sloop, and mobilized in Border Rhetorics, this volume amply succeeds in advancing rhetorical scholarship in immigration and border studies. Indeed, it orients us not only to the shifting borders of identity and otherness but also toward a rethinking of the rhetoric of community writ large. note s 1. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change (New York: New Republic, 1935), 70. 2. Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (New York: Prentice Hall, 1952), 22. 3. D. Robert DeChaine, “Introduction: For Rhetorical Border Studies,” in Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012), 1–15. 4. Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002), 5. 5. Antonio Tomas De La Garza, D. Robert DeChaine, and Kent A. Ono, “(Re)Bordering the Scholarly Imaginary: The State and Future of Rhetorical Border Studies,” in Rhetoric Across Borders, ed. Anne Teresa Demo (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press), forthcoming. 6. Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 76. 7. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoff rey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 80. 8. Michael Calvin McGee, “In Search of the People: A Rhetorical Alternative,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 61, no. 3 (1975): 242. 9. Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (2004): 204. 10. Victor Turner, From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play (New York: PAJ Publications, 1982), 45–51. 11. Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Toward History, vol. 2 (New York: New Republic, 1937), 78.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 286

8/5/15 2:04 PM

afterword

|

287

12. Ono and Sloop, Shifting Borders, 27. 13. David Newman, “On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework,” Journal of Borderlands Studies 18, no. 1 (2003): 20. 14. See, for example, Leo R. Chavez, Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); J. David Cisneros, “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601; D. Robert DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (2009): 43–65; Anne Teresa Demo, “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Through the Documentary Lens,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 197–212. 15. Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation),” in The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, ed. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006), 86–111. 16. Kent A. Ono, “Borders That Travel: Matters of the Figural Border,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 19–32. 17. De La Garza, DeChaine, and Ono, “(Re)Bordering the Scholarly Imaginary.” 18. J. David Cisneros, “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070,” in DeChaine, Border Rhetorics, 133–50. 19. Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies,” in Cultural Studies, ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler (New York: Routledge, 1992), 286.

bibl io gr a ph y Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation).” In The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, ed. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta, 86–111. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Asen, Robert. “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 2 (2004): 189–211. Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. Vol. 2. New York: New Republic, 1937. ———. Permanence and Change. New York: New Republic, 1935. ———. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall, 1952. Chavez, Leo R. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11, no. 4 (2008): 569–601. ———. “Looking ‘Illegal’: Affect, Rhetoric, and Performativity in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 133–150. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. DeChaine, D. Robert. “Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, no. 1 (2009): 43–65. ———. “Introduction: For Rhetorical Border Studies.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 1–15. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. De La Garza, Antonio Tomas, D. Robert DeChaine, and Kent A. Ono. “(Re)Bordering the Scholarly Imaginary: The State and Future of Rhetorical Border Studies,” in Rhetoric Across Borders, ed. Anne Teresa Demo (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press), forthcoming.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 287

8/5/15 2:04 PM

288

|

the rhetorics of us immigration

Demo, Anne Teresa. “Decriminalizing Illegal Immigration: Immigrants’ Rights Through the Documentary Lens.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 197–212. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoff rey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies.” In Cultural Studies, ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler, 277–94. New York: Routledge, 1992. McGee, Michael Calvin. “In Search of the People: A Rhetorical Alternative.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 61, no. 3 (1975): 235–49. Newman, David. “On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 18, no. 1 (2003): 13–25. Ono, Kent A. “Borders That Travel: Matters of the Figural Border.” In Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, ed. D. Robert DeChaine, 19–32. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012. Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Turner, Victor. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications, 1982. Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 288

8/5/15 2:04 PM

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

claudia a. anguiano (PhD, University of New Mexico) began her contribution to this volume as a lecturer at Dartmouth College, although she is now an assistant professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at California State University, Fullerton. Engaging the fields of communication studies, critical race theory, and Latino studies, her research and teaching interests focus on Latina/o cultural production, activism, and rhetorics of immigration. She is currently working on a book about the protest practices of undocumented immigrant youths and how DREAMers communicate about their identity and agency.

karma r. chávez  is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Arts and an affiliate in the Chican@ and Latin@ Studies Program and the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is co-editor (with Cindy L. Griffin) of Standing in the Intersection: Feminist Voices, Feminist Practices in Communication Studies (SUNY Press, 2012), and author of Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities (University of Illinois Press, 2013). Chávez is also a member of the radical queer collective Against Equality, an organizer for LGBT Books to Prisoners, and a host of the radio program A Public Affair on Madison’s community radio station. terence check  (PhD, University of Pittsburgh) is a professor of communication and chair of the Communication Department at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University in Minnesota, where he also serves as chair of the Joint Faculty Assembly and Joint Faculty Senate. His research and teaching interests are in the areas of rhetoric and public address, environmental communication and advocacy, and the rhetoric of advertising. He has published his work in Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture and in various anthologies.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 289

8/5/15 2:04 PM

290

|

about the contributors

jay p. childers  is an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Kansas. His research focuses on the relationship between rhetoric and democratic politics in the United States. He is the author of The Evolving Citizen: American Youth and the Changing Norms of Democratic Engagement (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012), and the co-author of Political Tone: How Leaders Talk and Why (University of Chicago Press, 2013). He has also written a number of essays, including pieces that have appeared in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Quarterly Journal of Speech, and Western Journal of Communication.

j. david cisneros  is an assistant professor in the Departments of Communication and Latina/Latino Studies at the University of Illinois. He is the author of “The Border Crossed Us”: Rhetorics of Borders, Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity, published in the Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Critique series at the University of Alabama Press in 2014, as well as journal articles in such venues as the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Communication, Culture, and Critique. He teaches classes in the areas of rhetorical theory and criticism and social movement communication. lisa m. corrigan (PhD, University of Maryland) is an associate professor of communication, director of the Gender Studies Program, and an affiliate faculty member in both African and African American Studies and Latin American Studies at the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on the rhetoric of social movements, particularly the black power movement and the Cuban Revolution.

d. robert dechaine  is a professor of liberal studies and communication studies at California State University, Los Angeles. His research engages rhetorical and cultural theory to explore productions of humanitarian discourse, civic identities, and social imaginaries. He is the author of Global Humanitarianism: NGOs and the Crafting of Community (Lexington Books, 2005) and the editor of Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier (University of Alabama Press, 2012). His work has been published in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, the Journal of Communication Inquiry, Text and Performance Quarterly, and the Western Journal of Communication. He serves as the current editor of Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. anne teresa demo  is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University. A past recipi-

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 290

8/5/15 2:04 PM

about the contributors

|

291

ent of the National Communication Association’s Golden Monograph Award, her articles have appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Women’s Studies in Communication. She is the co-editor of Rhetoric, Remembrance, and Visual Form: Sighting Memory (Routledge, 2012), The Motherhood Business: Communication, Consumption, and Privilege (University of Alabama Press, 2015), and Rhetorical Inquiry Across Borders (Parlor Press, 2015).

dina gavrilos is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. Her cultural studies–oriented scholarship analyzes the production of social power through mediated discourses of intersecting racial, ethnic, and class identities (among others), particularly those communicated through news discourses. She has published articles in The Obama Effect: Multidisciplinary Renderings of the 2008 Campaign (SUNY Press, 2010) and in the Journal of Communication Inquiry, Critical Discourse Studies, and the Journal of Philosophy and History of Education. She received a PhD from the University of Iowa’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication in 2003.

e. johanna hartelius  is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh. Her research focuses on expertise, immigration, public memory, the digital public sphere, and the intersections thereof. Her first book, The Rhetoric of Expertise (Lexington Books, 2011), served as the heuristic for a special issue of Social Epistemology (2011). She is the recipient of the 2013 Janice Hocker Rushing Early Career Research Award, and her scholarship has appeared in Argumentation and Advocacy, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Culture, Theory, and Critique, Management Communication Quarterly, the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Review of Communication, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, and the Southern Communication Journal. emily ironside  (MA, University of Arkansas) is a communication honors graduate from the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on the rhetorical subject making of immigrants within the context of crafting federal immigration policy. Serving for more than ten years in the field of international education, she has participated in the immigration landscape as a student and employment immigration policy advisor, grassroots DREAM Act advocate, and rhetorical critic. Ironside currently serves as a development officer for the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 291

8/5/15 2:04 PM

292

|

about the contributors

christine jasken  earned her BA from the College of Saint Benedict in communication and Spanish. In 2007, Christine was awarded “top paper” at the University of St. Thomas Undergraduate Communication Research Conference for her analysis of the US Customs and Border Protection’s “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” campaign. She is currently completing her master of public health degree at the University of Minnesota.

yazmin lazcano-pry  is a graduate teaching assistant and doctoral student in the Rhetoric, Composition, and Linguistics Program at Arizona State University. She has been published in Puentes: Revista México-Chicana de Literatura, Cultura y Arte and has co-authored a chapter in Collaborative Learning and Writing: A Practical Sourcebook. Her research interests include Chicano/a studies, Latino/a and Latin American rhetorics, visual rhetoric, historical memory, rhetorics of immigration, digital rhetoric, and audience reception.

michael lechuga  is a PhD candidate at the University of Denver in the Department of Communication Studies. He is also an avid instructor at the English Language Center. His work interrogates alien affects—the reductive attributes often placed on migrant bodies as they intersect with media, government, and legal bodies—and reimagines ways to complicate citizenship through an activist philosophy.

alessandra b. von burg is an associate professor and director of graduate studies in the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University. She is affiliated faculty for American Ethnic Studies and Jewish Studies. Her research focuses on rhetorical theory, political theory, and migration studies. She has published in Philosophy and Rhetoric, Advances in the History of Rhetoric, Quarterly Journal of Speech, and other national and international outlets. She is co-principal investigator for the Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows (BFTF) Summer Institute, a Department of State–funded summer program for international and American students, as well as the director and executive producer of the Where Are You From? Project.

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 292

8/5/15 2:04 PM

INDEX

AB540 students, 102 Abrego, Leslie, 102 Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi, 216 advertisements in “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” campaign absence of Border Patrol officers in, 39 depiction of death in, 34 desert landscapes in, 35 display of religious artifacts in, 33 effects of sounds, 37–38 emotional value of, 36 family theme in, 34–35 “Funeral” advertisement, 32–34, 36, 44n82 ghosts in, 29, 30–31 “La Carta” advertisement, 34–36, 38 Mexican actors and themes in, 29 sponsor of, 42n36 testimonial narratives in, 37 “Tumbas” advertisement, 29–32, 37 use of images in, 37 affect. See also emotion characteristics of, 233, 249 definition of, 248 vs. emotion, 40n6 as form of value, 250 human communication and circulation of, 261 as mode of experience, 269n14 affective economy, 249, 251 Against Equality: Prisons Will Not Protect You, 83 Ahmed, Sara, 38, 249, 250 Alien Enemies Act (1798), 169 aliens American patriotism and, 230 definition of, 225 extraterrestrial, 231, 232 in fi lms and gaming media, 225, 226 grotesque distortion of, 230–31, 234 in imagined and real spaces, 227 as invaders, 226

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 293

rejection of, 230–31 relationship between migrants and, 226, 231 Almaguer, Tomás, 162 Amaya, Hector, 139 “American” child, 129n11 American white majority culture, 176n2 Anglo-Saxon culture, 157, 158, 160 Anguiano, Claudia, 3, 12, 135, 278, 283 anti-immigration legislation, 4, 8, 234, 241 Anzaldúa, Gloria, 228 Arellano, Victoria, 70–71 Arizona Republic, 141, 142 Arizona Senate bill 1070, 229, 241 Arizona’s referendum on Proposition 300, 135– 36 Arizona v. United States, 8–9 Asen, Robert, 133, 134, 160, 278 Asiatic Barred Zone Act (1917), 164, 178n38 Associated Press (AP), 104 Aztlán (legendary ancestral home of Aztec peoples), 228, 229 Badillo, David, 56 Baker-Cristales, Beth, 133, 136 Battistella, Graziano, 62 Battle: Los Angeles (fi lm) aliens invasion in, 235–36 depiction of bravery and national pride, 239 as extraterrestrial fi lm, 226 grotesque distortion of the alien in, 230, 234, 235–36, 239 role of Latinas/os in, 239–40 US military in, 235, 238–39 Beasley, Vanessa, 184, 187 Benedict XVI, Pope, 53 Berg, Ramírez, 225, 227 Bilingual Education Act (1967), 118 bilingualism. See also language advantages of, 122, 123–24 bilingual education, 112, 118–19 as cultural capital, 120–21

8/5/15 2:04 PM

294

|

index

bilingualism (continued) global economy and, 124–25 ideological assumptions about, 122 as linguistic spice, desire of, 125–26 native English speakers and, 123–24 in news media, representation of, 114–15 public perception of, 112, 113 racialized discourses about, 113 US national security and, 124–25 value of, 113, 115 Bitzer, Lloyd, 5 Black Legend, 153–54n64 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), 98 Bolton, Susan, 9 Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, 104, 105 border crossing, 10–11, 36–37, 39–40 border enforcement budget, 28 border guards, cultural institutions as, 279 Border Rhetorics: Citizenship and Identity on the US-Mexico Frontier, 15, 275–76 borders in Chicana/o literature, 228 fear and, 282 as imagined spaces, 228–31 rhetorical notion of, 14, 231 right to control, 61 significance of, 231 study of, 276–77, 284 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (2013), 4, 7, 9 border space, 229, 230, 235–36 Bourdieu, Pierre, 113, 120 bracero (strong-arm) program, 225 Bracy, Bobby Joe, 99 Brandt, Deborah, 137 Brennan, Teresa, 233 Brewer, Jan, 241 Brummett, Barry, 5 Brush, Lisa, 139, 144 Burke, Kenneth Grammar of Motives, 217 on human impulse for communion, 279 on identification, 209–10, 231, 275 on imagination in rhetoric, 209 on mysticism, 232 on observation, 275 Permanence and Change (Burke), 275 on real function of rhetoric, 219n14 Bush, George W., 54 Calafell, Bernadette Marie, 229 Calvino, Italo, 211, 212, 217, 220n26

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 294

Carlson, Tucker, 53 Carrasco, Tania Unzueta, 133, 134 Casillas, Dolores Inés, 28 Catholic Church American colonization and, 56 beliefs, 33 calls for hemispheric solidarity, 56, 57 debate on immigration and, 50, 63–64 on human dignity, 60–61 on pastoral care of migrants, 52 on recognition of human dignity, 59 on rights of migrants, 53 Center for Applied Linguistics, 128n1, 128n2 Chaput, Catherine, 249, 261 Chávez, Karma, 3, 11, 51, 135, 281 Chavez, Leo, 50, 134 Check, Terence, 3, 10, 279 Cheney, George, 56 Cherwitz, Richard, 5 children on the run, 1 Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), 164, 178n38, 185 Chinese immigrants President Garfield on, 164 Chock, Phyllis Pease, 172 Chomsky, Aviva, 95 Cisneros, J. David on anti-immigration legislation, 41n11 on communities, 279 on news media coverage of immigration, 41n19 on representation of immigrants, 39 research interests of, 3, 14–15, 234, 282 citizenship complexity of, 13 concept of, 13, 104, 134, 149, 160, 278, 280 inclusive and exclusive models of, 133 national affects of US, 234 renovation of, 204–5 rhetorical, 151n29 social status and, 280 studies of, 218 value of, 104 civic identity, 285 Clemens, Kristi, 38 Cleveland, Grover, 187 Clinton, Hillary, 83 Cloud, Dana L., 79 collaborative expertise, 137 Colorlines.com news site, 93, 97 community American, 279 definition of, 277 as discursive enactment, 278

8/5/15 2:04 PM

index human impulse for, 279 as rhetorical formation, 277–78 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, 256 Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano (CEM) pastoral letter on migration, 50 Conyers, John, 175 Coogan, David, 139 Cornelius, Wayne, 38 Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), 74 Corrigan, Lisa, 3, 13, 279, 282 counterpublic spheres, 138–39 Croly, Herbert, 184 Cronon, William, 35 crowd learning, 213 cultural capital, 114, 120–21 curanderismo (folk healing practices), 32 Cushman, Ellen, 138 Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 25, 28–29 Czolgosz, Leon, 194–95 Dahmer, Jeff rey, 73 Daniels, Roger, 18n19, 185 Davis, Angela, 72, 73 Davis, Diane, 6, 261 DeChaine, D. Robert, 15, 96, 230 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative, 7, 18n20 De La Garza, Antonio Tomas, 284 Demo, Anne Teresa, 3, 11, 279 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 11, 70, 75, 82 Department of Justice’s report on Authority of Immigration Officers, 240 detention centers, 84n8 disidentification, 230 disjunctive discourses, 115–16, 127–28 Dobbs, Lou, 53 Documented Dreams (Watterson) analysis of, 149, 150 as collaboratively written text, 139, 149–50 on media stereotypes of immigrant students, 143 publication of, 135–36 sponsors’ contribution to, 138 youth featured in, 141 Dorsey, Leroy, 183, 184, 196 Douglass, Frederick, 137 DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act arguments in favor of, 175 congressional hearing, 173

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 295

|

295

exclusionary nationalism and, 159 public debates on, 173–74 on residency requirements, 180n76 students’ support of, 135 DreamActivist.org, 93–94, 101 DREAMers advocacy efforts, 103–4 campaign in support undocumented youths, 101, 103 definition of, 93 identity, 11–12, 102, 152n58 rhetorical strategies of, 12 social activism of, 10 DREAM movement, 17n13 “Drop the I-Word” (DTIW) campaign, 93, 97 Durbin, Dick, 10 Dyer, Thomas, 184 Ecclesia in America apostolic exhortation, 54, 57, 62 Economist, 126 Elevación agency, 28, 37 embodiment, 283–84, 285 Embrick, David, 104, 105 Emergency Quota Act (1921), 165 emotion. See also affect vs. affect, 40n6 definition of, 248 as form of value, 250 as mode of experience, 269n14 rhetoric of immigration and, 267 emotional habitus, 250–51 English language, 116, 117 Ensalaco, Mark, 51, 55 eugenics/eugenicists, 106n12, 164 “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform,” 54 exclusionary nationalism assimilationism as feature of, 160–61 classism as feature of, 162–64 definition of, 158 DREAM Act activists and, 159, 173 historical significance of, 159 ideological flexibility of, 160 key topoi of, 158 racism as feature of, 161–62 xenophobic narrative of, 162 expert networks, 140 Exsul Familia Nazarethana apostolic constitution, 52–53, 63 extraterrestrial-invasion fi lms affect of, 233, 242 anti-immigration rhetoric and, 225

8/5/15 2:04 PM

296

|

index

extraterrestrial-invasion fi lms (continued) characteristics of, 241–42 correlation between migrants and extraterrestrials in, 227, 241 experience of, 232 first emergence of, 225 impact on viewers, 226 nationalism of, 242 Fisher, Walter, 206 Flores, Lisa, 168, 229 Flower, Linda, 135, 137 foreign-language-immersion education. See also bilingual education ideology of whiteness and, 115 popularity of, 122–23 positive outcomes, 123 in public schools, growth of, 112 racial and social status of students, 129n11 rhetorical figure of “American” child in, 114 as risk-taking, 126 studies of, 113 foreign-language-immersion programs, 121–22, 128n1, 128n2, 128n3 Foucault, Michel, 163, 173 Fox, Vicente, 54 Gallegos, Jackie, 28 Garfield, James, 164 GateWay students. See also undocumented youths academic achievements of, 146–47 challenge of exclusive model of citizenship by, 149 everyday life of, 145–46 experience learning English, 147 expertise of, 143, 147–48 family values, 148 mass media about, 141 “necessary and fitting response” to media stereotypes, 143–45 networks of, 142 relations with sponsors, 138, 139, 148 self-identification of, 136 Gavrilos, Dina, 3, 12, 282 gay rights, 83 Gentlemen’s Agreement with Japan (1907), 183 GEO Group, 74 ghosts, 31–32 Goizueta, Roberto, 30, 35 Goldzwig, Steven, 56 Gonzales, Corky, 228

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 296

Gonzales family, 252, 253, 258, 265–66, 270n32 Greene, Ronald, 261 grotesque, 232 Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of (1848), 166, 179n49, 226 Guantánamo Bay processing center, 74 Gutierrez, David, 166 Hakuta, Kenji, 123 Hall, Stuart, 95, 113, 114, 117 Hamilton, Alexander, 158, 159, 175 Hariman, Robert, 31 Hartelius, E. Johanna, 133, 137, 276, 283 Hasian, Marouf, 164 Hatch, Orrin, 10 Hauser, Gerard, 96 Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) on medical care for HIV-positive migrants, 80 petition to support LGTB migrants, 70, 71, 84n1 recommendations on protection of LGTB migrants, 81 reports of sexual assault of migrants, 79–80 services, 70, 78 “Submission of Civil Rights” petition letter, 76 Hesford, Wendy, 59 Higgins, Lorraine, 135, 139, 144 Hogan, J. Michael, 56 Holder, Eric, 76 Holguin, Iliana, 38 Holling, Michelle, 168, 229 Hollywood fi lms, 228, 229 hooks, bell, 119, 120 Huber, Pérez, 100 Hughes, Richard, 33 human dignity, 59, 60, 61 human rights, 83 Icaza, Rosa María, 36 identification Burke on, 209–10, 231, 275 between citizens and noncitizens, 209 division and, 209–10 imagination and, 209 mobility and, 208 as symbolic act, 231 identity construction of, 117, 119 naming and, 102

8/5/15 2:04 PM

index problem of redefining American, 174 rhetoric and civic, 285 studies of, 284, 285 “illegal” absence of term in legal practices, 98 association with threat, 96 campaign against using the word, 97, 100 as dehumanizing term, 98–99 history of use in American English, 94–95 as immigrant label, 93, 94, 100 as inaccurate term, 97–98 as racist term, 99–101 as signifier of social difference, 95 “undocumented” as alternative term to, 102–3 illegal alien, 98 illegal immigrants, 1, 74 illegality, 93, 94–96, 99, 107n24 imagination, 209, 211–12, 217–18 immigrant communities, 3 immigrant nation myth, 6, 18n19 immigrant rights organizers, 133–34 immigrants advocacy campaigns to support, 10, 104 in American imagination, images of, 184 anti-immigrant xenophobia, 118 anti-immigration legislation and, 41n11 attitude toward Asian and Caucasian, 170 as citizens, 207–8 vs. citizens, 6 civic engagement of young, 12–13 classes of, 10 distinction between migrants and, 105–6n2 education of, 12 experience of, 215 identity construction, 139 ideology of education policy and, 12 language barriers, 12 legal status of, 12 legislation concerning, 85–86n24, 186 media depiction of, 139 “melting pot” metaphor, 198 national distinctions of, 199 population in North Carolina, 220n37 public perception of, 8 racism and, 118 representations of, 251 responsibility of sovereign nations and, 60 sense of belonging to multiple places, 214–15 special registration program, 8 statistics of, 93, 204 stories of, 208–9, 210

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 297

|

297

immigration anti-communist rhetoric of, 171 border rhetoric and, 15–16 Catholic Church and debate on, 50 conservative narrative of, 280–81 control, 164 detention, 75, 81–82, 85n24 deterrence approach to, 8 emotions and ideologies of, 267 exclusionary nationalism and, 13 growth of illegal, 1 as histories of mobility, 205 human rights and, 11 legislation on, 4, 7, 8–10, 85–86n24, 177n25, 229–30 link to citizenship and identity, 280 NAFTA’s impact on, 240 as national security threat, 171–72 news media coverage of, 41n19 policy, 9, 50, 51–52, 79, 175 politics and, 2, 6–7, 204 in popular culture, 14 public perception of, 280, 281 reasons for, 207, 214 reform, 96–97 as rhetorical process, 283 study of, 1–2, 14, 15, 276–77, 281–84 Immigration Act of 1882, 186 Immigration Act of 1891, 186 Immigration Act of 1903, 183 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 70, 80, 81 Immigration and Nationality Act (1952), 74 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 27 “Immigration” episode. See 30 Days television series Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986), 7, 75 immigration rhetoric ethno-politics of studying, 284–86 function of, 280 labels of, 5–6 language of, 4–5 multiple meanings of, 4 role of affects and emotions in, 247–48, 249, 251 scholarship on, 2, 3, 252, 267–68, 276 social activism and, 4 in US public culture, 6 INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, 78

8/5/15 2:04 PM

298

|

index

Independence Day (fi lm) aliens as invaders in, 226, 235–36 final scene, 237–38 grotesque distortion of aliens in, 230, 234, 237 impact on audience, 238 main characters, 236 Operation Desert Storm in Iraq and release of, 240 patriotic theme, 237 plot, 235, 236–37 US military in, 235 ingenium, theory of, 218–19n2 insider/outsider binary, 143 International Catholic Migration Commission, 53 Ironside, Emily, 3, 13, 279, 282 “I Was a Stranger” campaign, 64 Izquierdo, Pablo, 26 Jablonski, Carol, 56 Jacobs, Harriet Ann, 137 Japanese residents criminalization of, 169 internment of, 169–70 as threat to national security, 168 Jasken, Christine, 3, 10, 279 Jasper, James, 102 Jensen, Robert, 151n21 John Paul II, Pope conception of ecclesial solidarity, 57, 62 Ecclesia in America apostolic exhortation, 54, 62 on illegal immigration, 53 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 62 Johnson, Jed, 166 Johnson, Kevin, 98 Jorge, Frank changing views of, 259–60 criticism of producers of 30 Days show, 264 emotional transformation of, 248, 254, 258, 260, 262 fear of immigrants, 253, 255, 256 life with Gonzales family, 247, 253–54 as naturalized US citizen, 256–57 personality of, 253, 254–55 trip to Mexico, 258–59 use of language, 257 Just Detention International, 71 Justice for Immigrants (JFI) campaign, 53 Kari, Camilla, 55 Kerwin, Donald, 85n24

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 298

Kidd, Benjamin, 188 Kock, Christian, 160 Korematsu v. United States, 170 Krikorian, Mark, 54 Krome Avenue Detention Center, 74 Lacy, Michael G., 113 Lal, Prerna, 101 Lambda Legal organization, 76, 78, 80, 81 language. See also bilingualism advantages of Mandarin, 124 in global economy, 124–25 immigration reform and, 105 as marketable skill, 124 non-English languages, 114, 130n57 public discourse about, 100, 112–13 racial politics of, 116 Latino affect, 233–34 Latino parishioners, 57 Latino threat narrative, 50, 134 Laughlin, Harry, 165 Lawrence v. Texas, 73 Lazarus, Emma, 157, 184, 195 Lazcano-Pry, Yazmin, 3, 12, 283 Learned, Jimmy, 25 Le Bon, Gustave, 192, 193, 201n53, 201n54 Lechuga, Michael, 3, 14, 282 Lee, Sheila Jackson, 174 legitimate/illegal binary, 142 Leopardi, Giacomo, 211, 220n26 LGBT immigrants abuses of, 11, 78 lack of public recognition of, 82 legal services and support of, 70 prison experience of, 72 violations of rights of, 70–71 vulnerability of, 71, 79 LGBT rights, 83–84 Lin, Serena Yi-Ying, 85n24 Lucaites, John Louis, 31 Luibhéid, Eithne, 158, 164 Lundberg, Christian, 40n6 Lynch, John, 56 Lyotard, Jean-François, 233 Madrazo, Christina, 70 Mahony, Roger, 53 Marciniak, Katarzyna, 106n14 Martin, Susan, 186 Massey, Douglas, 50 Massumi, Brian, 255, 263 “melting pot” metaphor, 160, 198 Mengwasser, Brad, 126

8/5/15 2:04 PM

index Mertus, Julie, 59 Mexican culture Eucharist symbols in, 36 importance of religion in, 33 material and spiritual dimensions of reality in, 29–30 meaning of border crossing in, 36 symbol of cross in, 33–34, 36 Mexican immigrants, 33, 166, 167, 168 migrant dignity, 58, 59–61 migrants detention of, 72 distinction between immigrants and, 105– 6n2 media representations of, 282 militaristic targeting of, 79 mobility horizontally, 205 mobility/mob-ility changes in trends, 217 horizontal, 205 immigration and notion of, 205, 213 as product of modern context, 210 reasons for, 207 technology and, 210–11 temporary and permanent, 214 Montejano, David, 164 Montini, Ed, 142 Morton, John, 76 Muñoz, José Esteban, 230, 234 mysticism, 232 Nair, Yasmin, 79 Napolitano, Janet, 76 narratives categories of literary and historical, 232 of movement, 210 National Coming Out of the Shadows Week, 103 National Conference of Catholic Bishops. See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) national identity, 159, 160 National Immigrant Justice Center, 11 nationalism, 234 National Origins Act (1924), 165 Naturalization Act (1790), 157–58 Nevins, Joseph, 40 “New Colossus, The” (Lazarus), 184, 195–96 Newman, David, 282 Newsweek, 122, 123, 125, 126 Newton, Lina, 50, 96 New York Times, 53, 104, 122, 124, 141 Ngai, Mae, 95, 105n2, 106n12

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 299

|

299

Night (Wiesel), 95 NIJC. See Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) No Human Being Is Illegal art exhibition, 106n14 “No Más Cruces en la Frontera” campaign, 10–11, 25–26. See also advertisements North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 7, 240 Novoa, Mónica, 99 Obama, Barack, 7, 82 Ochoa, Armando, 54 Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), 82 Olmsted, Audrey, 100 Omi, Michael, 157 Ono, Kent, 95, 113, 231, 276, 284 Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, 240 Oss, Adriaan van, 56 Other commodification of, 125–26 risk or romanticizing the, 215 Othering, definition of, 177n6 Otherness, 119, 211, 284, 285 Ott, Brian, 232, 233 Painter, Nell Irvin, 186 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 59 pastoral letters Always Our Children, 56, 58 authority of, 55 The Challenge of Peace, 55, 56, 58 drafting process, 55 studies of, 55, 56 Patrie, Amanda, 141 Pearl Harbor, attack on, 168, 169 Peck, Wayne Campbell, 135 Pedro Páramo (Rulfo), 30, 40 Perea, Juan, 177n18 Perry, Rick, 7 petitions assumption on imprisonment of migrants in, 78 historical importance of, 75–76 language of, 76–77 online, 76 practice of naming abusers, 80–81 as “security state” mechanism, 83 to support LGTB migrants, 71, 72, 75 types of complaints in, 77–78 vague definition of protection in, 77 various degrees of success, 76

8/5/15 2:04 PM

300

|

index

Pius XII, Pope, 52 prison-industrial complex (PIC), 73, 78 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 81, 82–83 prisons, 72, 78, 84n8 private detention services, 74–75 protection, rhetoric of, 77, 86n27 Psychology of Peoples (Le Bon), 192 queer, 73–74 Quinn, John, 167 race critical rhetoric of, 113 definitions of, 201n54 fundamental characteristics of, 192–93 national loyalty and, 170–71 in the United States, 177n18 racism, 99, 161–62 Reagan, Ronald, 74 reality programs, 270n36 renovation, 218–19n2 of citizenship and immigration, 204, 207–8 repositioning, as rhetorical process, 207–8 rhetoric Burke on function of, 219n14 definition of, 5, 6 historical perspective on, 13 of race, 113 significance of, 104 rhetorical citizenship, 134, 150n3, 151n29, 160 rhetorical scholarship, 285–86 rhetorical strategies, 96–97 rhetoric of protection, criticism of, 86n27 Rhodes, Nancy, 123 Rice, Jenny Edbauer, 39, 252 Rodríguez, Dylan, 78 Román, Ediberto, 99 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 169 Roosevelt, Theodore on American character, 188–89, 191, 196 on anarchists, 195 on character of individual, 197 on helping others, 196 historians on, 184 immigration policy of, 13–14, 183–84 on immigration restrictions, 194–96, 197 on impact of immigrants on American society, 190–92 on intelligent capacity, 195 on Japanese immigrants, 189–90 Le Bon’s impact on, 201n53 on Leon Czolgosz, 194–95

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 300

on races, 192 on right and wrong kind of immigrants, 193– 94, 198 on selection of immigrants, 190 on threat to American identity, 190 on transformation of America by ethnic immigrant groups, 192 views on immigration, 185, 187–88, 189, 197–99, 198, 201n53 “What ‘Americanism’ Means,” 187 The Winning of the West, 187 Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, 169, 170 Rosa, Jonathan, 100 Rubio-Goldsmith, Raquel, 27 Rulfo, Juan, 30 S. 744. See Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Saldívar, José David, 228 Sánchez, Magaly, 50 scene-act ratio, 217 Schlanger, Margo, 76 Sciannamea, Michael, 262 Scott, Robert, 5 Scribner, Todd, 65n22 Seif, Hinda, 133, 134 Sen, Rinku, 99 “shifting borders” metaphor, 276 Sloop, John, 95, 276 Smith, Rogers, 184 Soerens, Matthew, 54 space, concept of, 229 Spade, Dean, 72, 79 spiritualism, 32 sponsors/sponsorship, 137, 138, 140 Spurlock, Morgan, 247, 253 “stickiness” metaphor, 250 Stonewalled report, 73 “Strangers No Longer” pastoral letter characteristic of, 51, 54, 64 in comparison to doctrinal declarations, 65n22 conception of migrant dignity and sovereignty in, 51–52 in context of Catholic doctrine, 52 on evangelization of migrants, 58 on human dignity, 59–60 on illegal immigration, 58–59 impact of, 51, 54 key objectives of, 57–58 as model for pastoral statements, 54 on rights of migrants, 63

8/5/15 2:04 PM

index on rights of sovereign nations, 62–63 sources and structure of, 57–58 stranger sociability, 152n42 Stuckey, Mary, 187 subjugated knowledges, 173 30 Days television series (“Immigration” episode) affects and emotions in, 248–49, 260, 261–62 broadcast, 14–15 criticism of, 264–65 embracement of migrants in, 262 impact on viewers, 261, 263–64, 268 interpersonal drama and confl ict in, 253 media commentators on, 262–63 portrayals of Mexico in, 271n51 public reaction to, 263–64 students’ comments on, 263 viewers’ perception, 252, 262, 263, 265–66 Time, 125 Turner, Victor, 278 Undocumented and Unafraid Campaign, 135 undocumented migrants border crossing experience, 27–28, 39 border death rate, 28, 42n26 border enforcement operations against, 27 Border Safety Initiative for, 28 Catholic Church and, 53 classification of young, 18n20 enforcement strategies against, 27 enrollment in higher education, 102 labels of, 102, 103, 105 undocumented youths. See also GateWay students: assimilationist strategies, 175–76 collaborative expertise of, 134, 141 connections with home countries, 145–46 everyday life of, 145–46 hostility toward, 134–35 importance of social status, 151n15 self-identification of, 136, 174 United States 100 percent Americanism, 117–18 anti-Asian rhetoric in, 168 anti-immigration xenophobia in, 117–18, 206 approaches to linguistic pluralism in, 117 attitudes to immigrants, 157, 159, 162–63, 165–66, 170 calls for assimilation of immigrants, 165 Chinese immigration to, 164 definitions of race in, 177n18

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 301

|

301

deportations of Mexicans from, 167 economic growth, 186–87 ethnic origin of immigrants in, 129n21 foreign languages speakers in, 125 growth of unaccompanied minors moved in, 219n11 hysteria around Mexican birthrates, 167 immigration policy, 163–64, 171–72 immigration statistics, 178n36, 178n44, 186, 204 myth of English monolingualism, 117 prevention of assimilation of ethnic groups, 160 prospects for immigration reform, 206 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, 185–88 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), 50, 53 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 59 USA Today, 101 US Immigration Detention, 74–75 US-Mexico border in Hollywood’s fi lms, 228 militarization of, 79, 86n34, 226 number of deaths at, 28 Vico, Giambattista, 218, 218–19n2 victims/invaders binary, 144 Villadsen, Lisa, 160 virtue, Aristotelian definition of, 152n46 Von Burg, Alessandra, 3, 14, 278, 284 Wall Street Journal, 122 Warner, Michael, 138 Warren, Earl, 170 Watterson, Yvonne, 135, 140–41, 143 WAYF (Where Are You From?) Project, 213–14, 215–17, 219n3, 220n37 Wheatley, Phillis, 137 Where Are You From? Project (WAYF) video interviews, 205–6 whiteness changing definition of, 161 communicative silence of, 116 connection with property, 161 hidden nature of, 116–17 idea of commodification of the Other and, 119 ideology of, 115 nationality and, 116 Wiesel, Elie, 95 Williams, Raymond, 277 Winant, Howard, 157

8/5/15 2:04 PM

302

|

index

World Migration Day, 53 World Trade Center bombing, 7–8 Wuornos, Aileen, 73 xenophobia, 117, 162, 262 Yarborough, Ralph, 118 Yosso, Tara, 120

18738-Hartelius_Rhetoric.indd 302

Young, Iris Marion, 175 youth activists, 135 Zaeske, Susan, 71 Zamora, Salvador, 29 Zarefsky, David, 185, 199n12 Zibaldone (Leopardi), 211 Zwick, Keren, 82

8/5/15 2:04 PM