The Framing of Immigration

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sorry for the length, but this is from George Lakoff, the Berkely professor whom I posted earlier on framing before. Interesting read for those who have spent a lot of time here debating illegal immigration...

The term "immigration reform" evokes an issue-defining conceptual frame — The Immigration Problem Frame — a frame that imposes a structure on the current situation, defines a set of “problems” with that situation, and circumscribes the possibility for "solutions."

"Reform," when used in politics, indicates there is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed — take "medicare reform," "lobbying reform," "social security reform." The noun that's attached to reform — "immigration" — points to where the problem lies. Whatever noun is attached to “reform” becomes the locus of the problem and constrains what counts as a solution.

....

Bush's “comprehensive solution” entirely concerns the immigrants, citizenship laws, and the border patrol. And, from the narrow problem identified by framing it as an “immigration problem,” Bush's solution is comprehensive. He has at least addressed everything that counts as a problem in the immigration frame.

But the real problem with the current situation runs broader and deeper. Consider the issue of Foreign Policy Reform, which focuses on two sub-issues:

* How has US foreign policy placed, or kept, in power oppressive governments which people are forced to flee?'

* What role have international trade agreements had in creating or exacerbating people's urge to flee their homelands? If capital is going to freely cross borders, should people and labor be able to do so as well, going where globalization takes the jobs?

Such a framing of the problem would lead to a solution involving the Secretary of State, conversations with Mexico and other Central American countries, and a close examination of the promises of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank to raise standards of living around the globe. It would inject into the globalization debate a concern for the migration and displacement of people, not simply globalization's promise for profits. This is not addressed when the issue is defined as the “immigration problem.” Bush's “comprehensive solution” does not address any of these concerns. The immigration problem, in this light, is actually a globalization problem.

Perhaps the problem might be better understood as a humanitarian crisis. Can the mass migration and displacement of people from their homelands at a rate of 800,000 people a year be understood as anything else? Unknown numbers of people have died trekking through the extreme conditions of the Arizona and New Mexico desert. Towns are being depopulated and ways of life lost in rural Mexico. Fathers feel forced to leave their families in their best attempt to provide for their kids. Everyday, boatloads of people arrive on our shores after miserable journeys at sea in deplorable conditions.

As a humanitarian crisis, the solution could involve The UN or the Organization of American States. But these bodies do not have roles in the immigration frame, so they have no place in an “immigration debate.” Framing this as just an “immigration problem” prevents us from penetrating deeper into the issue.

The current situation can also be seen as a civil rights problem. The millions of people living here who crossed illegally are for most intents and purposes Americans. They work here. They pay taxes here. Their kids are in school here. They plan to raise their families here. For the most part, they are assimilated into the American system, but are forced to live underground and in the shadows because of their legal status. They are denied ordinary civil rights. The “immigration problem” framing overlooks their basic human dignity.

Perhaps most pointedly, the “immigration problem” frame blocks an understanding of this issue as a cheap labor issue. The undocumented immigrants allow employers to pay low wages, which in turn provide the cheap consumer goods we find at WalMart and McDonalds. They are part of a move towards the cheap lifestyle, where employers and consumers find any way they can to save a dollar, regardless of the human cost. Most of us partake in this cheap lifestyle, and as a consequence, we are all complicit in the current problematic situation. Business, Consumers and Government have turned a blind eye to the problem for so long because our entire economy is structured around subsistence wages. Americans won't do the work immigrants do not because they don't want to, but because they won't do it for such low pay. Since Bush was elected, corporate profits have doubled but there has been no increase in wages. This is really a wage problem. The workers who are being more productive are not getting paid for their increased productivity.

A solution to the “immigration problem” will not address these concerns because they are absent from the “immigration frame.”

Framing matters. The notion of this as “an immigration problem” needing “immigration reform” is not neutral.

....

The Illegal Frame

The Illegal Frame is perhaps the most commonly used frame within the immigration debate. Journalists frequently refer to “illegal immigrants” as if it were a neutral term. But the illegal frame is highly structured. It frames the problem as one about the illegal act of crossing the border without papers. As a consequence, it fundamentally frames the problem as a legal one.

Think for a moment of a criminal. Chances are you thought about a robber, a murderer or a rapist. These are prototypical criminals, people who do harm to a person or their property. And prototypical criminals are assumed to be bad people.

“Illegal,” used as an adjective in “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens,” or simply as a noun in “illegals” defines the immigrants as criminals, as if they were inherently bad people. In conservative doctrine, those who break laws must be punished — or all law and order will break down. Failure to punish is immoral.

“Illegal alien” not only stresses criminality, but stresses otherness. As we are a nation of immigrants, we can at least empathize with immigrants, illegal or not. “Aliens,” in popular culture suggests nonhuman beings invading from outer space — completely foreign, not one of us, intent on taking over our land and our way of life by gradually insinuating themselves among us. Along these lines, the word “invasion” is used by the Minutemen and right-wing bloggers to discuss the wave of people crossing the border. Right-wing language experts intent on keep them out suggest using the world “aliens” whenever possible.

These are NOT neutral terms. Imagine calling businessmen who once cheated on their taxes “illegal businessmen.” Imagine calling people who have driven over the speed limit “illegal drivers.” Is Tom Delay an “illegal Republican?”

By defining them as criminal, it overlooks the immense contributions these immigrants subsequently make by working hard for low wages. This is work that should more than make up for crossing the border. Indeed, we should be expressing our gratitude.

Immigrants who cross outside of legal channels, though, are committing offenses of a much different nature than the prototypical criminal. Their intent is not to cause harm or to steal. More accurately, they are committing victimless technical offenses, which we normally consider “violations.” By invoking the illegal frame, the severity of their offense is inflated.

The illegal frame — particularly “illegal alien” — dehumanizes. It blocks the questions of: why are people coming to the US, often times at great personal risk? What service do they provide when they are here? Why do they feel it necessary to avoid legal channels? It boils the entire debate down to questions of legality.

And it also ignores the illegal acts of employers. The problem is not being called the Illegal Employer Problem, and employers are not called “illegals.”

Conservatives

The conservative views:

* Law and Order: The “illegal immigrants” are criminals, felons, and must be punished - rounded up and sent home. There should be no amnesty. Otherwise all law will break down.

* The Nativists: The immigrants are diluting our culture, our language, and our values.

* The Profiteers: We need cheap labor to keep our profits up and our cheap lifestyle in place.

* The Bean Counters: We can't afford to have illegal immigrants using our tax dollars on health, education, and other services.

* The Security Hounds: We need more border guards and a hi-tech wall to guarantee our security.

Progressives

* Progressivism Begins at Home: The immigrants are taking the jobs of American works and we have to protect our workers.

* African-American Protectionists: Hispanic immigrants are threatening African-American jobs.

* Provide a path to citizenship: The immigrants have earned citizenship with their hard work, their devotion to American values, and their contribution to our society.

* Foreign Policy Reformers: We need to pay attention to the causes that drive others from their homelands.

* Wage supports: Institute a serious earned income tax credit for Americans doing otherwise low-paying jobs, so that more Americans will want to do them and fewer immigrants will be drawn here.

* Illegal Employers: The way to protect American workers and slow immigration of unskilled workers is to prosecute employers of unskilled workers.

We can see why this is such a complex problem and why there are so splits within both the conservative and progressive ranks.

Summing Up

The “immigration issue” is anything but. It is a complex melange of social, economic, cultural and security concerns — with conservatives and progressives split in different ways with different positions.

Framing the recent problem as an “immigration problem” pre-empts many of these considerations from entering the debate. As a consequence, any reform that “solves” the immigration problem is bound to be a patchwork solution addressing bits and pieces of much larger concerns. Bush's comprehensive reform is comprehensive, but only for the narrow set of problems defined in the “immigration debate.” It does not address many of the questions with which progressives should be primarily concerned, issues of basic experiential well-being and political rights.

Ultimately, the way the current immigration debate is going — focusing narrowly on domestic policy, executive agencies and the immigrants — we will be faced with the same problems 10 years from now. The same long lines of immigrants waiting for legal status will persist. Temporary workers will not return home after their visas have expired, and millions of undocumented people will live amongst us. Only by broadening the understanding of the situation will the problem, or, rather, the multiple problems, be addressed and adequately solved. The immigration problem does not sit in isolation from other problems, but is symptomatic of broader social and economic concerns. The framing of the “immigration problem” must not pre-empt us from debating and beginning to address these broader concerns.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research...dge/immigration

Edited December 4, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Heracles 417]

The interesting thing there is that only the profiteers and Foreign Policy Reformer really support illegal immigration..

Everyone else has a valid reason on why the US needs to get tough on 'illegal' immigrants.

There are a number of effective solutions:

• Protect the border
  
• Setup a system which allows an employer to accurately verify a persons eligibility to work in the US. Then fine and punish any employers who continue to employ illegal immigrants
  
• After the appropriate background and security checks, any illegal immigrant who has been here for 10 years or more could be granted temporary PR. Therefore allowed to live here and work towards citizenship. The appropriate fees and back taxes should be charged to these immigrants..
  
• Anyone under 10 years should be evaluated accordingly. Any arrests etc should automatically result in deportation. The appropriate fees and back taxes should be charged to these immigrants..
  
• All tax payer funded services should require verification for eligibility. That includes schools etc.. No free ride for illegal immigrants
  
• Tough fines and penalties for any new illegal immigrants. Like 15 year bans and possible low security jail time..
  
• It should also be a requirement for all illegal immigrants applying for PR to learn and understand English.
  

[Traviesa 0]

The interesting thing there is that only the profiteers and Foreign Policy Reformer really support illegal immigration..

Everyone else has a valid reason on why the US needs to get tough on 'illegal' immigrants.

There are a number of effective solutions:

• Protect the border
  
• Setup a system which allows an employer to accurately verify a persons eligibility to work in the US. Then fine and punish any employers who continue to employ illegal immigrants
  
• After the appropriate background and security checks, any illegal immigrant who has been here for 10 years or more could be granted temporary PR. Therefore allowed to live here and work towards citizenship. The appropriate fees and back taxes should be charged to these immigrants..
  
• Anyone under 10 years should be evaluated accordingly. Any arrests etc should automatically result in deportation. The appropriate fees and back taxes should be charged to these immigrants..
  
• All tax payer funded services should require verification for eligibility. That includes schools etc.. No free ride for illegal immigrants
  
• Tough fines and penalties for any new illegal immigrants. Like 15 year bans and possible low security jail time..
  
• It should also be a requirement for all illegal immigrants applying for PR to learn and understand English.
  

I actually kind of like what you have posted here. It seems to address most of the needs for all involved parties. Except for one thing. I take issue with giving temporary PR to those who have been here 10 years or more. All that really means is that they have successfully avoided getting caught for 10 years. What about the other sector of illegal aliens (and I don't actually have a problem with this term) for whom family and home now mean America? What about the ones who weren't so lucky as to evade immigration and are now serving that time in Mexico? What if they fit both of those qualifications (my husband would be one of them). See I don't agree with giving priority to the ones still here. I think family unity should be the top priority, followed by those who have already served time outside of the US-I would think of anyone, they would be the ones most in need. As for the other ones, make them have to go back in order to get these benefits. I just don't like the idea of them having practically NO penalty for the same thing my husband did, for which we have had plenty of penalty.