Word Wars: Honesty vs. Hate in the Immigration Debate

Nowhere is the reality of the power of words more evident than in the US immigration debate, which is actually largely a war of words. This is not a matter of semantics—not some trivial playground squabble. The immigration debate is largely about how we define people and, in too many cases, whether we define undocumented immigrants as people at all.

May Day 2010 rally against Arizona SB1070 in Portland, Oregon

It is a debate that will decide the fate of millions of people, including some of our most vulnerable members of society—that is, the children of undocumented immigrants. That we appear to be losing this war of words then, is cause for alarm and action. The progressive movement has ceded ground to the extreme right on immigration mostly, as Eric Ward, lead organizer for Which Way Forward: African Americans, Immigration and Race, argues, because of our unwillingness to name racism as the primary stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform.

Polls show that most US Americans actually support Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-immigrant state law that not only enables, but encourages racial profiling by police. When I asked author and nationally syndicated radio talk host Bill Press about the strong anti-immigrant bias these polls show, he noted that much of this could be due to the way in which the questions were worded. He believes that the US is actually pretty evenly split across political lines. And, in fact, there is some research to support this optimism.

Unfortunately, I’ve personally had conversations with progressive people, albeit mostly white men, who support SB1070. In my social network, I’ve spoken with others who’ve had similar experiences conversing with white liberals, usually male but also female, who are either riding or on the other side of the immigration debate fence. In short, the progressive movement is troublingly divided when it comes to immigration. This is not so surprising when we remember again that the immigration debate is largely about race. And this blogger, for one, is never surprised by the duplicity of too many self-proclaimed liberal white Americans on issues of race.

The US government supports and encourages anti-immigrant sentiment by employing hate speech, including using terms like “criminal alien” in legislation. The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of our country also contribute to further othering “the other” not only through using terms like “illegal alien,” but, as Press noted, through more blatant hate speech and outright lies about immigrants and people of color.

And, really, what else but hate speech are terms like “illegal alien,” when they are used to refer to people who are our neighbors, friends and relatives? Or “criminal alien” when, as in the Secure Communities program, it is predominantly applied to those who have committed no crime, but may have been stopped for a traffic violation or, under SB1070, by government-sanctioned and legislated racial profiling?

At a recent hearing of the Portland Human Rights Commission on the so-called “Secure Communities” program, new Police Chief Mike Reese attempted to frame the conversation by reassuring the immigrant and refugee community that racial profiling and deportations of people who have committed minor infractions—that is, who have not committed any actual crime—are “unintended consequences” of the program. Never mind that most of those who have been deported through “Secure Communities” programs in other states have been precisely those who committed no crimes. Or that the “unintended (yet predictable and preventable) consequences” of programs like “Secure Communities” include the separation of parents from their children; increased fear of police in immigrant and refugee communities; a subsequent increase in the number of crimes that are not reported as a result of that fear; the violation of human and constitutional rights such as due process; and the specter of state-sanctioned racial profiling.

Reese assured us that the Portland Police will work to mitigate these “unintended consequences” as they begin to collect data on the Secure Communities program. I was reminded of the language of warfare in which people—that is, civilians—who are killed during fighting between armed groups are called “casualties” or, slightly better, “civilian casualties.” Yet there is nothing casual about death. One wonders whether a more insulting term exists to describe the loss, especially under violent circumstances, of human beings, of someone’s loved ones. Similarly, one wonders whether there could possibly be a less accurate name than “Secure Communities” for a program that actually decreases rather than increases security in our communities. Or, when we know that ICE is working hard to meet a quota of 400,000 deportations per year, a more flimsy and deceptive catch-all phrase—“unintended consequences”—for the results of that program.

I’ve heard it said that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nor, as I recently learned, is repetition. We are the words and ideas that we consume. And the words and ideas that we impart. So if we are going to put out words and ideas, they must come from a place of love, justice and power. Our “change movement” rallying cry—three words that will forever evoke the memory of Barack Obama’s successful campaign to become the first black President of the United States—were, ironically, borrowed directly from the immigrant rights movement: Si, se puede! Si, se puede! Yes, we can! Yes, we can! We said it enough times that we believed it.

This is the power of words. And we can choose words that will win the immigration debate. Words like “undocumented” that actually reflect the reality of the situation in which so many find themselves. Or like “economic refugee” or “environmental refugee”—terms that are sadly becoming increasingly applicable to many in the developing world who come here to seek a better life for their families.

We need more Eric Wards who are not afraid to name race and racism in the immigration debate. And we need allies like Bill Press, who will call out measures like Arizona’s SB1070 for what they are—that is, “racial profiling,” which is again a term that accurately describes the central strategy of most anti-immigrant programs.

And we must all call out the xenophobic right’s dehumanizing jargon of “illegal” and “alien” and “criminal,” which is being used to promote discrimination against our friends and families, for what it is—that is, “hate speech.” Let us say “no” with a unified voice and as often as it must be said to the myths and outright lies about immigrants perpetuated by xenophobic right wingers as we say “yes,” without faltering and in a unified and resounding voice, to an honest national dialogue about comprehensive immigration reform.

ACTION STEPS:

Global groups working on immigrant rights:

Sadly, I couldn’t find a group really working on building a global immigrant rights movement. The closest I could find were mostly groups focusing on globalization, but not from an immigrant rights framework, per se. These groups include:

• Global Exchange
• Attac
• International Forum on Globalization
• Transnational Institute

Please send me any globally-focused immigrant rights groups that you find!

National groups working on immigrant rights:

• Which Way Forward: African Americans, Immigration and Race
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Change.org
• Highlander Research and Education Center (also has a list of more national resources)
• Opportunity Agenda

Oregon groups working on immigrant rights:

• CAUSA
• Center for Intercultural Organizing
• Immigration Law Group
• Safe Communities Project
• Unete

PRINT RESOURCES:

• Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed by Nigel Harris
• New Study: Immigration Lowers Crime Social Science Quarterly via RaceWire
• Top 10 Reasons to Support Immigrant Rights by Global Exchange

Can Philanthropy Become the Change that It Wishes to See? Reflections from EPIP and ABFE Conferences

Over this past weekend, I was fortunate to attend the Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) conference in Denver, Colorado, as well as events sponsored by the simultaneously occurring Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE) conference. One of nearly thirty Professional Development Fund scholars, my time in Denver was paid for by EPIP and its sponsors, as well as by my employer McKenzie River Gathering Foundation. I had what I have described elsewhere as an “awesome” time. In addition to making friends I hope to keep forever, I met and got advice from peers and other professionals who I am certain will have an impact on my career path and life. And so it is more in the spirit of one who cares and is, therefore, critical that I have written the following.

As a black immigrant woman from a low-income background, I struggle with embracing the higher—that is, middle—class status that I’ve acquired through education at a liberal arts college, as well as through my entry into the elite institution that is philanthropy. Despite the ambiguity of the term “working class” (because, after all, how many of us, even the well off among us, don’t work?!), I clung to this label because it kept me grounded in my identity as one who considers “the struggle” to be her life. However, ironically and, perhaps, necessarily, it was while among a multiracial gathering of young people (EPIP) and a multigenerational gathering of black people (ABFE), that I first felt acutely “classed.”

Fortunately, EPIP’s conference agenda attempted to tackle class head on even as it kept race necessarily at the forefront of the discussion. In one workshop, a brilliant sister advocated for making philanthropy more accessible to the general public, including to, say, the low-income kid from north Philly. This vision took on special significance when one of the workshop leaders, also a black woman, mentioned that she was, in fact, that kid from north Philly. She had grown up knowing nothing about philanthropy yet had become an expert in the field. Another EPIP workshop, “Transformative Communication Across Race, Class, Gender & Role,” led by Milano Harden and Chad Jones, also explicitly addressed class.

In contrast, my experience of ABFE was one in which class was the ghostly white elephant in the room, palpable but stealthily silent. Members of ABFE reached out to me in different ways—from including me in their circle at an after-party to attempting to connect me to decision makers within the organization. I was, therefore, surprised and dismayed when one of the group’s members completely ignored me, forcing me to follow him around for a few minutes, after I had been introduced to him by a peer who had hoped he would give me relevant information on their work.

I realized then that, for some, class supersedes everything, including race, in relationship building. I also understood in that moment what EPIP plenary speaker Bill Somerville had meant when he recalled how, when he first joined the foundation world as a grantmaker, he swore to himself that he would never treat people the way that he had been treated when he was a grantseeker.

The elitism of the foundation world is rooted, at all levels, including that of foundation staff hierarchies, in the false dichotomy between “the giver” role and “the receiver” role. This false dichotomy not only fosters unhealthy power dynamics, but is detrimental to the overall health of the philanthropic ecosystem that EPIP Executive Director Rusty Stahls challenged us to cultivate.

As a foundation “insider” who is often also an “outsider,” I would argue that getting over our elitism is philanthropy’s greatest and most persistent challenge. EPIP is certainly a step in the right direction and is one example of an organization that is boldly confronting racial and generational disparities in the field. Class, however, presents a daunting hurdle because of the seemingly intractable elitist nature of philanthropy.

So I return to the question: how do we make philanthropy accessible to people who may not always choose the right fork during a three course meal, but who, based on their ability to empathize with the struggles of everyday people, are more likely to say what needs to be said and to do what needs to be done…even at the risk of being accused of bringing up topics that do not constitute polite dinner conversation? How will philanthropy become the change that it wishes to see?

The goal of transforming philanthropy requires us to understand that who we reach out to and how we reach out matters. It demands that we accept that something is wrong if, after a national conference, the only real connections we have made are with people who belong to our race, class, gender, sexual orientation or generation. It begs us to reach out, but also to be reachable. To shake and to hold hands with a firm grip that says we mean it and are in it for the long haul. To, as more than one presenter asserted, trust ourselves, our colleagues, and the groups in which we invest. And, finally, to bring love back into the equation.

EPIP plenary speaker Robby Rodriguez said that social justice is the nexus of democracy, power and love, and stressed that social justice must be the focus of philanthropy in the 21^st century. Perhaps then, our shared love for democracy will inspire us all to do more of the above in order to transform philanthropy into a truly inclusive public good.

One thing is certain: doing away with the elite culture of philanthropy will require action at the individual level. It will require people like the anonymous ABFE member who paid for a young person to attend that group’s keynote address not knowing that it would be me showing up at the door, secretly hoping to knock it down.

2010’s TOP 10 EXCUSES FOR RACISM: How to Decode the New Sophisticated Lingo

Dear readers,

The following post was inspired by a number of recent racist incidences in pop culture and the excuses that many people made for these incidents. I shared this piece at a recent gathering for the McKenzie River Gathering Foundation and participants suggested that context might be helpful. So in no particular order,  I was struck by the manner in which many people responded to Vanity Fair’s exclusion of women of color in its March 2010 up and coming Hollywood actresses issue; Universal Picture’s deletion of two black actors from an advertisement for the movie Couples Retreat; John Mayer’s now infamous degrading and fetishizing comments about black women; and finally, by technology, specifically cameras–that is, plastic and metal objects–that discriminate based on race.  The intent of this list is to help people decode the new sophisticated brand of racism, which is more subtle and ingrained than the overt racism of the past. The reality is that many people who defend and perpetuate this kind of racism, do not even recognize it as such. My sense is that many of the people who make these arguments or excuses  for racism really know not what they do. This means that we must respond with even more sophistication–by employing humor, art and other creative strategies, even as we also use time-tested strategies like boycotts and divestment, to get people to think more deeply about subliminal and coded racism. Please let me know if this list is helpful to you!

10. It’s not racism, just good marketing. Their target audience is white, so what do you expect?

Decoded: The Veiled Sign

The message behind this argument is, essentially, that “Whites Only” signs are in vogue again. This argument was recently used by some to defend Nokia, Vanity Fair magazine, and even musician John Mayer against charges of racism. The primary flaw with this argument is that it puts profits before people and assumes that businesses should not have to operate in ways that are inclusive or, at least, not discriminatory. Furthermore, it ignores the reality of white privilege which ensures that most products are marketed using a white-centric model.

9. Anyway, BET, Black Miss America , Jet, the NAACP, United Negro College Fund, etc. do it too! They won’t let white people in and that’s reverse discrimination.

Decoded: The Reverse Discrimination Distraction

A classic case of dominant culture denial. How quickly have those who make this argument forgotten that these black or other minority-centered entities were created precisely because of racism and white privilege. The point is that, after creating the need, some white people would like to do away with solutions that address that need.

8. It’s always been like this. The magazine cover is an accurate depiction of Hollywood —all white, skinny people. What’s the big deal?

Decoded: The Good Old Days

Racism isn’t logical, so no surprises here. People who make this argument may secretly have an affinity for other historic norms—facets of American life that did not go out of style for decades upon decades and, perhaps, even centuries. Slavery, anyone? How about no women in the “workplace?” Those were the days. Right… Beware of hidden nooses.

7. Well, probably there weren’t any qualified/talented/pretty/smart/up-and-coming people of color who they could have included. Should they not have featured/hired the qualified white people? I mean, I can’t think of any black/Hispanic/Asian people who fit the bill.

Decoded: The Curious Case of the MIA POC

Two quick points. One: Most white people admit to having no or few friends of color, yet some are comfortable asserting that there are none qualified for various positions/awards/etc. This begs the question: How would they know? Two: This point is false. There are many qualified, talented, intelligent, and/or beautiful people of color. You probably knew that, but don’t forget it. And add Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Alexander Pushkin to the list of celebrated people who were actually, by American standards, black, but who people assume were white.

6. Who cares? I don’t care if they’re purple, orange or blue. All I care about is whether they meet the criteria, are qualified and/or can do the job.

Decoded: The Rainbow Bridge for Sale

Artist-activist Damali Ayo calls this a “three year old’s understanding of race.” Yet another variation of the anti-Affirmative Action argument. People who make this argument obscure social construct with lived reality. They forget that much of our reality is constructed, particularly by a dominant culture paradigm that puts people of color at the bottom of the social ladder. Moreover, it is not difference or race the social construct that are the problems, but people who cannot tolerate and appreciate difference. This kind of argument ensures that #8 will never go out of fashion. I’ll wait till I meet the Purple People to believe this one.

5. We’re all human. So what if they only feature/hire/promote white people?

Decoded: The Universal Liar

Another anti-Affirmative Action argument, similar to #6. Oftentimes, people who make this argument are in denial about white privilege. The argument is a nonstarter since it ignores obvious realities—no one is denying that we are all human. But it’s silly and even insulting to those of us who identify with and appreciate our racial and cultural heritage to deny a significant part of who we are. More importantly, it ignores the reality of significant racial disparities in employment, health care, education, etc. It assumes that there is universal equality when, in fact, there is not.

4. It’s a private business. If you don’t like it, just don’t buy it. Go somewhere else.

Decoded: The Capitalist

A variation of #10, usually employed selectively—in defense of white racism. Profit before people. Again, they could make it easier for us and put up “Whites Only” signs, but that would be too, well, obvious. This is also a contradiction of #9. We’re told Ebony, BET, shouldn’t exist, then told that if we do not like white-centered Vanity Fair, we should instead buy these alternative, black-centered publications. It would seem, then, that there is still a need for businesses that are specific to people of color. Point taken.

3.  It’s a free country. They should be able to say or show what they want even if it’s insulting to people of color.

Decoded: All in the Name of Democracy

This argument misses the point entirely. Once an entity, individual or company, has exercised or, rather, abused its free speech, we still get to tell it what we think. We can also put our words into action and boycott that entity. That’s real democracy.

2. It’s racist to point out it’s racist.

Decoded: The White Wall.

Even when it is the elephant in the room—anyone with eyes, except perhaps the “colorblind” (and I don’t mean that in the medical sense) can see what’s missing or happening—if you are a person of color and you point “it” out, expect to have the tables turned on you. You will inevitably be accused of trying to stir up controversy, playing the victim, dividing people, etc. You will then be called a reverse racist for even bringing the subject up. Voila. Now you are the racist. Right…

1. Stop being so politically correct. It’s annoying.

Decoded: The Too Cool for School

Hmmm… Four centuries of white supremacy versus four or so decades of political correctness? Which is worse? As a friend of mine used to say, “Depends on where you’re standing.” As Howard Zinn wrote, “The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away.” So who’s counting, some might ask. Well, we are.

WHAT YOU CAN DO ONCE YOU’VE UNVEILED CODED OR OTHER RACISM:

1. UNITE/SHOW SOLIDARITY with groups, organizations and businesses that share your values and that value you as a human being, consumer or ally. Ever heard of the European Union? There is economic and political strength in numbers. People of color own businesses that could use your support and might cater to your needs.
2. BOYCOTT businesses and other entities that do not share your values and do not value you as a human and/or as a consumer. This is especially powerful if done as a group.
3. PROTEST! Even if theythinks we doth protest too much. Protest with your pen, keyboard and mouse, with your money and with your vote. And never rule out the possibility of a good old fashioned street meet.