Foreignness
The construction of an individual or group as foreign derives from nationalistic processes that prefer homogenized people and cultures. As nations accept ideologies of foreignness and banning the foreign, the migration and conditions of ethnic groups in particular become an issue. The United States has manufactured a public us versus them dichotomy against Latinx (gender neutral term) populations by posing them a foreign threat in attempts to halt support for their immigration. I argue that such a strategy has functioned through its usage of moral panics and manipulation of American values as well as the legal and cultural naturalization of borders and detention. It must be acknowledged that Americans diversify with a vast range of belief systems but I focus on those that hold anti-immigration or extreme conservative values.
It is undeniable that American values and policies have been impacted by the September 11 terrorist attacks. Moral panics of foreignness and external threats were embedded into the public by politicians and community leaders at that time. The same narrative and language has been employed to alarm citizens of Latinx immigration. Illegal, aliens, job-thieves, rapists, and criminals are words that have been used to describe Latinx and particularly Mexican populations (Branton, Cassese, Jones & Westerland, 2011, 664). The impact of 9/11 on Americans has caused some of them to view immigration through a certain homogenized lens as the border became associated with terrorism and now illegal immigration (Branton, Cassese, Jones & Westerland, 2011, 664). A foreigner, and a brown-skinned one at that, is often seen as a threat that has little place among the true Americans. Media and structures manipulating core American values, such as patriotism, allegiance, and family, serves as a useful tactic that advances the dichotomy of native against foreigner. By presenting Latinx individuals crossing the border as invaders, it is then the American duty to support government and security efforts to remove such threats. The same rhetoric was applied to the War in Afghanistan and those critiquing it were often labelled anti-American. It has been studied that those with a strong dedication to the national identity and its protection show greater support for tight immigration policies compared to those with weaker national identities (Branton, Cassese, Jones & Westerland, 2011, 676). A quantitative study looked at factors of acculturation, fear, anti-Latinx sentiment, and media exposure pre-9/11 and post-9/11 and concluded that those factors had little influence on attitudes before the terrorist attacks but contributed largely to immigration views after (Branton, Cassese, Jones & Westerland, 2011, 677). It raises the simple question of why are these immigrants, who are sometimes fleeing persecution, considered a threat to Americans? Homogenization and the maintenance of Anglo-American values have been cited as reasons for the fear or exclusion of immigrants. Possibilities of non-assimilation, rebellion to American laws, and acculturation contribute to anti-Latinx attitudes (Branton, Cassese, Jones & Westerland, 2011, 674). The different skin colour, the different language, and the difference of cultural norms causes a barrier between Latinx and non-Latinx Americans—it is almost human nature to cling to similarity but this can also be damaging. Deep-rooted nationalism within the United States has been a contributor to various conflicts and the most recent one seems to be the discontent for the increasing “Hispanization” or foreignness of their states.
Along with inciting a moral panic and using emotional narratives upon citizens, the United States has legalized and naturalized militarized border patrol and detention—barriers that should not exist in any democratic nation. The legal process surrounding immigrants crossing the border for asylum can be considered very flawed. Border agents have complete control over which asylum seekers can have entrance with many sharing their stories of being illegally denied access or intimidated with incarceration (Cabot, 2014, 366). With incidences of migrants being shot at the border and thousands of children being separated from their families, the border system works to threaten the community. It creates a long and complicated entrance process in efforts to minimize immigration with only a few authorities (government officials, border agents, lawyers, and judges) deciding upon their stay or citizenship in America. Slow access to counsel, delayed court trials, and backlogging are only a few of the legal issues that arise for asylum seekers (Cabot, 2014, 369). With hundreds of thousands dying from the War on Drugs in Mexico, there is desperation to cross the border (Cabot, 2014, 373). The problem is that the heavy securitization of the border and legal process for immigrating is complex and since it is so naturalized, safer and more practical solutions are less campaigned for. Those with anti-immigration or far-right winged views may even prefer the militarization and concreteness of the border through “Trump’s Wall.” The ethics of detention—a form of imprisonment, confinement, and captivity—must also be questioned since it has become naturalized despite its destructive properties. The United States has normalized such a practice through various factors including their racist and gendered attitudes, outlawing of Latinx migrants, and xenophobia (Silverman & Lewis, 2017, 96). In fact, it is shown that these centres only affect the health of detainees and become economic burdens on the state without meeting their aim of decreasing illegal immigration (Silverman & Lewis, 2017, 96). By pushing the narrative of foreignness, detention is accepted as an appropriate method of protecting citizens from possible threats and eventually becomes normalized. Locations meant for separating migrants from the public should be prohibited because these physical spaces are built on fear and alienation. It functions to divide, isolate, and segregate groups to protect those deemed deserving of American resources.
The United States promotes an “us versus them” narrative in relation to Mexican or Latinx immigration by constantly reminding the public of their foreignness and alienness. They do this by using persuasive speech to generate moral panics and exploiting American values to fake a sense of urgency that requests civil obedience with governmental agendas. The theme of foreignness is also developed through the legalization and naturalization of non-democratic spaces such as heavily guarded detention centers and borders. The defamation of these groups functions to maintain white homogeneity and American nationalism without consideration for the increasing importance of diversification throughout societies.
