The Hidden Power of Statist Language: Discourse and Counter-Discourse Surrounding the Undocumented Immigrant

7/28/2019 The Hidden Power of Statist Language: Discourse and Counter-Discourse Surrounding the Undocumented Immigrant

1/29

The Hidden Power of Statist Language:

Dominant Discourse and Counter-Discourse Surrounding the Undocumented Immigrant

Linett Luna

University of California, Los Angeles


2/29

The Hidden Power of Statist Language 1

A chance to interrupt, to violate the adult world, its miasma of discourse

about them, for them, but never to them

Toni Morrison, Nobel Peace Prize Lecture

Introduction and Background

The last decade has seen the topic of immigration gain increasing prominence in public debate,

arguably reaching a climactic point of discussion in recent years amongst the general public and

politicians alike. With almost twenty five years since the enactment of any major legislation that

addressed the status of most of the undocumented population (the last in 1986, known as the

Immigration Reform and Control Act), the lives and futures of undocumented immigrants in our

country have not been a priority to Congress. Currently, about 11 million undocumented

individuals reside in the United States, with slightly over 2 million of them being children and

young adults. According to reports released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, over 1.5

million undocumented immigrants have been deported under the Obama administration from

2009-2012 (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2012). Although the number of

undocumented immigrants living in the United States increased steadily in the past ten years, this

number peaked at 12 million in 2012, and has since remained around the 11 million figure. This

group is made up of individuals who overstayed their visa, hold a Temporary Protected Status (or

TPS), crossed the border without proper documentation, and those who seek asylum and are

waiting for status adjustment, among others (Pew Research Hispanic Center 2013).

Today, a number of Americans show serious concern over protection of borders and the welfare

of the national economy (which some would simply sum up as xenophobia), which has led to

state and federal programs that target immigrants through increased policing, implementation of


3/29


harsh enforcement, and severe limitations on access to social services (see Arizonas SB1070 or

Alabamas HB 56, for example). At the same time, however, the strengthening of the immigrant

rights movement, especially youth-led campaigns and actions, has kept immigration as a relevant

issue in the mainstream media, and has pushed government officials to take direct action in

addressing the exclusion, fear, and legal limbo that undocumented immigrants face every day.

Many undocumented immigrant youth and young adults are grassroots organizers in their

communities, and regularly appear in media advocating for immigrant rights.

In 2010, with five votes short in the Senate, the Federal DREAM Act failed to pass in Congress,

a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for eligible immigrant youth who came to the

United States as minors and who complete a higher education program or serve two years in the

military, among other requirements. In November 2012, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-

Texas) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.) presented a bill that the media dubbed the Republican version of

the DREAM Act. It is to this ACHIEVE Act, its treatment in the media, and the response of

undocumented immigrant youth, that we turn to in order to better understand the logic behind the

dominant discourse that permeates American politics and media in their handling of

undocumented immigrants. Later, we examine the counter-discourse that challenges these

governing norms and creates a space for dissident ideas.

Previous Scholarship and Research Approach

Past studies on the topic of unauthorized migration have dealt with hard facts and statistical

data, producing copious studies in the history of immigration, immigration and its effects on the

economy, effects of immigration policy, socioeconomic and political factors that contribute to

migration (e.g. Hinojosa Ojeda, et.al 2010, Camarota & Bouvier 1999). In more qualitative

studies, questions of acculturation and assimilation, language acquisition, accounts of the


4/29


immigrant experience, among others, are common (e.g. Surez-Orozco & Surez Orozco 1995).

It seems, however, that facts such as the undocumented population making up only about 3.5%

of the total U.S. population, or the average cost of a detaining a single immigrant per day is

$164, are not the talking points used in the common rhetoric surrounding immigration (National

Immigration Forum 2012). If it is not hard figures and careful calculations that are at the base of

the current discourse, what, then, allows for the rationale dominating the governments and the

average Americans discussion of the undocumented immigrant? Few studies in the field of

anthropology, such as Santa Anas Like an animal I was treated: anti-immigrant metaphor in

US public discourse actually look closely at the way the medias use of language treats and

constructs the image of the immigrant, a process that directly affects public opinion and the

prevailing perception of immigrants in the United States. Far fewer scholars, such as De Genova,

are critical of the way scholars specifically approach the subject of undocumented migrants, the

language that is commonly used to explore this issue, and the problematic use of the terms

legal and illegal in the first place (2002). Through this study, I aim to explore a new

approach to the way dominant discourse constructs a false logic that extends to the media and the

general public, and how this bubble of meanings is punctured by the counter-discursive practices

of activist immigrant youth who reject these mainstream ideologies. Using the ACHIEVE Act

bill text and its treatment in social media, and drawing on Michel Foucaults concepts of

discourse and power, as well as Carrithers work on proper nouns (contemporaries v.

consociates), and Cohns analysis on language that distances speaker from subject matter, I argue

here that the following mediums exemplify how immigrant exclusion, second-class status,

inhumane treatment, heavy surveillance, and an unquestioned, default criminalization is

maintained and normalized:


5/29


1) The ACHIEVE Act bill which represents official, legitimate language and serves todehumanize and abstract the undocumented immigrant, and that places the undocumented

immigrant at the bottom of a constructed moral hierarchy

2) The ACHIEVE Act press conference, which frames the bill and which can be seen asan extension of official, statist language, operating to infantilize potential beneficiaries,

distance and abstract undocumented immigrant youth, draw focus on the legal parameters

of the individual rather than existing law, and paint a false illusion of ample immigrant

agency,

3)

The discussion of the ACHIEVE Act in the media, which can be seen both as a

reflection of mainstream sentiment and as evidence ofthe extent to which official

language influences public discourse, serves to voice the opinions of official entities,

invisibilize immigrant youth, and exacerbate the criminalization of undocumented

immigrants.

I argue that immigrant youth successfully resist official and mainstream attempts to exclude,

dehumanize, abstract, invisibilize, and criminalize them and their families, and construct a

prominent counter-discourse that characterizes them as informed and legitimate members of

American society. These efforts are visible in:

4) The response of activist immigrant youth in official and alternative mediums, whichuses in part official language, inclusive messaging, and satirical commentary on

proposed legislation and political rhetoric.

As already mentioned, I use the terms discourse and counter-discourse largely based on

Foucaults idea that discourses are identifiable collections of utterances governed by rules of


6/29


construction and evaluation which determine within some thematic area what may be said, by

whom, in what context, and with what effect (as articulated by Faubion in Foucault 2000). I use

counter-discourse, on the other hand, as a competing set of ideas that stand as an alternative to

or challenge the established dominant discourse. Moreover, the concept of dominant discourse

is helpful in our analysis because I believe language proves to be a technique of power that is

especially dangerous and effective because of its apparent neutrality and political invisibility

(Foucault 2000).

Secondly, I also draw on Carrithers article From Inchoate Pronouns to Proper Nouns, in

which he illustrates how inchoate pronouns (such as generic nouns) start out disordered and

empty but slowly come to gain meaning and specificity. Carrithers notes that through generic

nouns, we come to understand subjects as either contemporaries or consociates. Contemporaries

are those who we know as types, those whom we can recognize and treat appropriately just

insofar as we properly recognize their type, that we identify through our knowledge of their

social genus (Carrithers 2008). On the other hand, consociates are people we grow old with,

whose lives we participate in, whom we know intimately and in their own termswith whom we

share mutual times, mutual places, mutual autobiographical memories, and mutually experienced

emotions (Carrithers 2008).

Lastly, part of my analysis echoes Cohns article on the technostrategic language that governs

the discourse of nuclear weapons amongst so-called defense experts. In her participant-

observation study of defense intellectuals, Cohn slowly comes to recognize the language

characteristics that allow this group of people to plan the most effective killing methods without

a single cringe or hesitation. Specifically, through the use of euphemisms, metaphors, acronyms,


7/29


among other linguistic devices, these individuals achieve an extraordinary abstraction and

removal fromreality (Cohn 1987).

Methods

All data collection was done through internet searches and is available to the general public. I

purposely used a simple method of typing key terms in the Google search engine so as to obtain

the same results as the average person would when looking for media coverage on the bill and

immigrant youth activist reaction. That is, my intent was to look at what was readily available to

people in the public domain, whether this yielded a balanced spectrum of different political

stances or not. This was meant to provide a reflective sample of the main opinions and

impressions of the media on this particular legislative proposal. Only the actual text of the bill

and two of the press releases issued by immigrant youth activist groups required more strategic

and specific online search techniques. The only exception to restricted accessibility was the

Citizen4Me Facebook group which allows viewing through member invitation (which I was

lucky to obtain a few days after the Facebook groups creation). I find this more specific search

on the immigrant youths counter-discourse perfectly adequate since this sample is meant to

reflect an emerging but nevertheless present, alternate collection of ideas, not a representative

picture of general, mainstream ideologies. The press conference was transcribed using common

linguistic anthropology conventions (see Transcript), while other media coverage of the bill in

video, text, and audio was looked as a whole, and only rough transcripts of videos were drafted.

Although DREAM Act-eligible and ACHIEVE Act-eligible individuals include youth and

adults, for the purpose of this study, I will at times simply use the term youth to avoid

redundancy.

The ACHIEVE Act


8/29


Introduced shortly after the presidential election in 2012, the Assisting Children and Helping

them Improve their Educational Value for Employment Act is a bill that, if passed, would

confer legal status on eligible immigrant youth and set them on a three-stage visa track. Those

who meet requirements would apply for a W1 conditional nonimmigrant visa accompanied by

a $550 fee. If requirements are met, after four years, W1 visa holders may apply for W2

conditional nonimmigrant visa, accompanied by a $750 free. After six years in W2 visa status,

and if all other requirements have been fulfilled, individuals may pay a $2000 fee and apply for a

W3 nonimmigrant visa. A W3 visa does not provide permanent legal residency or permit

unlimited travel abroad, but unlike W1 and W2 visa holders, W3 visa holders will not have to

submit semiannual reports to the State communicating their location and statement of

compliance with requirements.

After carefully looking through the language of the bill, a handful of patterns became particularly

salient that worked together to construct a discourse that dehumanizes immigrant youth (through

abstraction, and a stress on their economic value and utility), that establishes the immigrant as

inherently inferior to the American citizen (by creating a type of moral and value hierarchy based

on citizenship status), and thus organizes a power structure that places applicants under the

jurisdiction of the state and U.S. citizens.

Let us begin with an account of the nouns used in the text of the bill used to refer to the

applicant. The table below shows the results:


9/29


Term Count Percentage

Alien 172 82.7%

Non-immigrant 14 6.7%

Applicant 12 5.8%

Individual 2 1%Person 6 2.9%

Youth 2 1%

Total 208 100%

If -according to the bill- the immigrant youth or adult is above all, an alien, we must look at

the implications of this word choice. Some may argue that the word alien is part of the official,

politically correct language regularly employed in immigration policy and hence it is neutral

language. An alien, however, has immediate associations with foreign, strange, outsider,

different, unknown, and often, threat or danger. No specifically-human terms are triggered, and

no immediate positive associations come to mind, except perhaps, intelligent life, from a very

positive, science fiction-oriented standpoint. There almost seems to be an avoidance of anything

that would put a human face to the individual described in the bill. In all of the text, only one

single instance of his or her is found (page 24), and as shown in the chart, only in one out of

ten cases is the applicant referred to in a term that is purely human rather than as a classification

of migratory status. Just as Cohn demonstrates that the defense experts discussing effective

means of destruction and murder use a language that never allows for the mention of death or

suffering, government officials deal with aliens without a face, gender, community

connections, or familial relationships. A prime example of this is the specific mention that no

dependents, lineal ascendants, or collateral ascendants of the applicant may gain any

immigration benefit through this bill (lines 22-25, p. 10). Curiously, the word family

member is in fact mentioned immediately after, but next to the adjective culpable (line 5,


10/29


p.11). In this way, not only do aliens remain consociates (known because of their group

association), but this term also allows for certain ideas to be expressed while it would be odd or

even shocking to be uttered in regards to human beings or other groups. To illustrate, while no

eyebrows would be raised if an enforcement agent said on TV that he and his team were about to

go out to catch 200 aliens, many would become confused or shocked if the same individual

was to state he was ready to go out to catch 200 workers.

Thus, one can say that this widely accepted legislative language empties the immigrant from all

humanity and cuts off any ties (also characteristically human) he or she may have with society,

facilitating dehumanization and discriminatory treatment. As the reader moves through the text

of the bill, the alien is immediately branded as a commodity, valued solely for his or her ability

to produce. The very title of the bill, Assisting Children and Helping them Improve their

Educational Value for Employment Act speaks volumes of the purpose of the bill, as well as the

legislators view of the ACHIEVE applicant. We will let you adjust your legal status so that

you may be of value to the labor market and contribute to the American workforce, is what it

seems to say. Some may point to the benevolent nature of the words children, helping, and

education, but curiously, it is only in the title and description of the bill (all in page 1) that the

words children and youth are mentioned, and the bill specifically denies beneficiaries from

applying for federally administered social and student financial aid programs (there goes the

help and the education). Furthermore, the text is filled with words that further objectify and

dehumanize the applicant: he may be deportable, she may be removed, and he may not

become a public charge. If you are deportable, you are disposable, replaceable, you may be

kicked out of the country at no serious cost to us. You remove items, objects, things that are

not desired. You are not accused of a crime, you become the crime, become a public charge, a


11/29


burden or strain to society. Specifically, the purpose of the bill is said to give the ability to

contribute to the safety and economic growth of the United States (p.1). The bill is meant to

help the economy, not serve some humanistic purpose of providing a just opportunity for

personal growth and social mobility.

Lastly, I would like to point at the attributed de facto imperfection, criminalization, and

inferiority of the undocumented immigrant through a use of categorization that places the U.S.

citizen at the end of a spectrum of morality and social worth, which translates to possession of

power. The bill, following official terminology that is also in our immigration system and

immigration policy, narrowly defines the different names that an individual bears as he or she

goes through a process of legalization according to the ACHIEVE Act. It becomes apparent that

the goal of this process is gaining full US citizenship, although the bill itself does not provide

any means for this particular adjustment of status. Thus there is a spectrum of statuses:

Alien Conditional Nonimmigrant Nonimmigrant Legal Resident U.S. Citizen

This line of statuses would not be problematic if it were not extremely dictating of the rights and

privileges each status confers, and more importantly, of the power dynamics that this

configuration establishes. The transition from one label to another implies a more lax probation

period, less need for surveillance (lower demands for biometrics and compliance

documentation), and more protection from deportation. The power imbalances that are created

from such migratory status stratification is strikingly exemplified by one of the acceptable

forms of evidence an ACHIEVE Act applicant can submit: A sworn affidavit from a citizen of

the United States attesting to the aliens good moral character and the length and intimacy of the

relationship between the alien and the citizen (lines 16-21, p. 22). The U.S. citizen, by the mere


12/29


fact of being a U.S. citizen, is invested with the power to judge and attest to the moral

character of the alien, obviously implying the dubious character of the alien and the

inherent legitimacy and morality of the U.S. citizen (whoever he or she may be). Another

example of the unquestioned need to prove the undocumented immigrants morality and

continuously assess his or her abatement to the law is the inversion of the innocent until proven

guilty tenet. Usually, eligibility guidelines for a program are established as a you may be

eligible if you meet the following orif youthen you are eligible for. Not in the ACHIEVE

Act: The Secretary may not cancel the removal of an alien under subparagraph (B) or grant W-2

conditional nonimmigrant status unless the following conditions are met (lines 9-14, p. 31).

That is, you absolutely cannot obtain a benefit unless you do the following. There is an

assumed ineligibility until you thoroughly prove yourself otherwise. The 10-year period through

which the potential beneficiary comes to gain nonimmigrant status is filled with requirements

of background checks, biometrics, and regular proofs of compliance with the law: the necessity

to prove your innocence and allegiance to this country is based on the assumption that you are

potentially dangerous and violator of American law. It is easy to see, then, why the everyday

lives of individuals in the United States, especially those considered noncitizens, have become

so heavily governed by their legal status, often turning their legal status into their identity. This is

also seen in the language of the bill, where the statusof nonimmigrant is also the term used to

name the individual.

The power ofcontinuously repeating the word alien and the conglomeration of the associations

and characteristics attributed to the term became apparent as I took notes on the bill. I suddenly

found myself beginning my sentence with the alien must. Not only had my mind gotten used

to the term alien, but I was also employing the term and, for a split second, thinking of an


13/29


individual as an alien, with all its connotation baggage attached. The extent to which this

discourse influences the way the people think and speak beyond government entities, however, is

an important question. We therefore turn to see how the ACHIEVE Act becomes embedded and

framed as it moves from one space in the public sphere to the other.

The press conference: framing the ACHIEVE Act

The press conference where the ACHIEVE Act was first introduced is, in essence, the package in

which the ACHIEVE Act was delivered, serving as a frame for the discussion and handling of

the bill in the media and general public. The dominant discourse patterns found in the bill (which

abstract and distance us from the alien, that criminalize and suggest a false inherent inferiority

of the immigrant, and that establish him or her as a commodity) resonate in the press conference.

The illusion of choice on behalf of the immigrant, and the infantilization of the undocumented

immigrant youth (when convenient), are ideas that are introduced in this communicative event.

There were several terms that Senator Hutchison and Senator Kyl used to refer to undocumented

youth and adults who could potentially qualify for the bill, including they/them/those (18

instances), people (4 instances), children (2 instances), you (13 instances), young people (3

instances, and folks (1 instance). The framing of potential applicants as others, different and

separate from a we is clearly established as Senator Hutchison begins to introduce her

legislation:

4 we. know. that there are children. in our country5 who have been brought he:re uh-i^llegally by their parents.

6 and: we think the-the best step that we can take to: address a-

7 >an issue that is very timely< is. to. give a. legal status. uh: that would be earned.

The senators are part of a we,members of our country who seek to find a solution to a

problem, they represent an entity invested with the power to give legal status to a group of


14/29


people. And while this we may extend to the American audience (since it is our country) it

surely does not extend to the undocumented immigrant, for they are the ones that will receive

these legalbenefits from us. These potential applicants are them, or in rare cases people,

but never are they part of us. Once again, these nouns serve to distance and create a clear

division between the average American and the alien.

Out of the aforementioned use of pronouns, the image of a minor is alluded to in 5 instances

(Transcript lines 5, 17, 23, and 84). Yet, as we have already seen in the text of the bill, the word

children is mentioned only twice, both instances on the first page. Furthermore, the guidelines

and continuous checks demanded by the legalization process under the ACHIEVE Act is

certainly meant for a suspicious, potentially dangerous adult, not a child. And as the bill and the

authors of the bill have demonstrated, the proposal does not exactly have altruistic goals. Why

then, would the term even be used? One possible answer may be found in the fact that

immigration is an extremely touchy subject amongst conservatives in the United States, and that

the sponsoring and co-sponsoring legislators may be attempting to present (at a superficial level,

through its title and media messaging) an idea of minors in need of an opportunity, or even

forgiveness. Considering that the sponsoring legislators did not discuss the bill with immigrant

youth activists, however, it is easy to see how these terms become convenient when aiming to

hold control over the legislation they author and consequently, over the people their legislation

affects. Infantilizing the target population of the bill justifies their exclusion from the drafting

process and from official discussion of the bill. Hutchison and Kyl are proud to name other

legislators who are collaborating with them, and other folks with whom they have been

communicating, none of whom represent the target population of their bill. To meet with


15/29


undocumented immigrant youth who could potentially qualify for the bill would be to legitimize

them and recognize them as educated and innocent adults.

The element of criminality (via the word illegally) is immediately introduced as the basis of

this issue. Although the legislators seem to place the blame on the parent who consciously

committed the act of bringing his or her child without proper documentation, the shadow of

criminalization extending to the youth is confirmed by their having to earn their legal status.

This word is emphasized in the excerpt but also on line 28, and its sentiment is echoed in lines

32-33, where it is made clear that there will be no leniency or special treatment given. The idea

that the undocumented immigrant becomes desirable or admissible to American society only

when he or she is useful to the country (by means of obtaining advanced degrees or having

economic potential) is also made apparent by the presentation of the bill. Lines 26-27 resonate

with the already-discussed stated purpose of the bill:

26 and we think the: best thing that we can do to utilize. uh their talents

27 and the education they have recei:ved is to give them a legal st^atus

The idea of giving undocumented young adults the ability to adjust their immigration status

stems not from a kind, humanitarian gesture, but from a very practical, capitalistic notion that

investments, and human capital must be utilized to make the best out of the situation.

An interesting illusion of choice is also established by the language used by the senators, one that

is starkly contrasted not only by the reality of immigration system but by the very ACHIEVE Act

itself. Senator Hutchison and Kyl present the bill as one alternative to the various choices that

undocumented youth have. The following lines are emblematic of this false idea:


16/29


30 if they decide they want a green card. or they want to: >get into the citizenship trackto get the ball rollingan issue that is very timely< is. to. give a. legal status. uh: that would be earned.8

our. achieve act. has uh three steps.9

first. step is a w1 visa. which is: six years10

if you are going to college or pursuing uh >any kind of an advanced< or technical degree.11

and: you can also: be a w1 visa holder and: >serve four years in the militarytechnical degreeor served in the military< you would get a w2 visa? which would be: four years of work capability.14

and then. step three would be: the w3 visa .hh which would be renêwable every four years15

uh îf you comply: with all of the terms.16

the êligible. children. would be those brought here >before they were 14very va^luable inputschoo:ls in Americahave graduated from an American high school< really they know: no other country24

and:: they. want to go to college and be a part of our system.25

and we think the: best thing that we can do to utilize. uh their talents26

and the education they have recei:ved is to give them a legal stâtus27

and have them earn: their way into a permanent legal status28

I just want to say: >before I turn it over to senator kyl< this doesnt change the law as it is today. in that.29

if they decide they want a green card. or they want to: >get into the citizenship track


28/29

Transcript: ACHIEVE Act Press Conference 2

lets work on it(.)41

and uh her staff and mine. and the two of us have worked for a long time42

then(.) uh of course my colleague john mccain I have been talking with regularly and. marco rubio:43

uh: who: we knew would be a leader in this(.) effort44

was: very helpful in >helping us to modify some of the provisions that we had originally45

thought we would put in the legislationtalk to a lot of other folksneither of us are going to be here?we have to get this ball rollingall of the different aspects of the issuethe benefi:ciaries of this legislationin a related way< the administration has unfortunately chosen to60

in: one phrase. taken the law into its own hands61

choosing to ignore current law because it didnt think it was good p olicy62

and therefore creating a uh special status in fact if not de jure for this group of people (.)63

those of us who(.) strongly believe in the rule of law believe that64

in our country if you dont like the law(.) change it. or seek to change it. dont violate it.65

for a civilian thats called civil disobedience66

for the president. >its called violating __ of officethe only way that I can help this people< is not enforce law that69

congress passed and one of my predecessor signed (.)70

so: if you dont like the way it is(.) you dont thnink its fair then youll have to change it71

to conform the law to what is the right policy72

and to that extent we are introducing this legislation73

which is not dissimilar from what the president has done. de facto74as a way for righting the situation. but d-doing it in the right way75

mainly (.)76

a final point that id like to make here. when uh: and-andand- e-essentially77

>if I can just summarize this


29/29

Transcript: ACHIEVE Act Press Conference 3

and if you-you have a job and you keep a job and you dont uh dont get into trouble in this country81

youre gonna be here for the rest of your life with a legal status.82

and no path to citizenship is denied you under here(.)83

as a practical matter. uh most of the- the- by definition these are young people84

realistically young people frequently get married(.)85

in this country the biggest marriage pool are. ûs citizens ((smiles))86

.hh a us citizen can petition for a spouse87

to become a citizen in a very short period of time (.) (hh) around a year (.)88

so I dont think its any big secret that a lot of people who might participate in this program89

are going to have a very quick path to citizenship (.)90

îf thats the path that uh that uh they choose.91

he employment path is another way (.)92

my point here being that this is not relegating people to some ((extends arm out)) uh desert island here93

unable to participate in the civic affairs of our nation. at all94

>and its certainly not intended to be< quite the opposite95

so we think this is a good way to begin the discussion. we hope our colleagues will do so:96

and uh to the extent that we are able to do so from ^the ôutside97

>senator Hutchison and I will hope to be involved in that debate

Documents

The Hidden Power of Statist Language: Discourse and Counter-Discourse Surrounding the Undocumented Immigrant