Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi is a
fourth-year history and international development studies student
who encourages you to speak your mind at
Click Here for more articles by Shirin Vossoughi
Anyone that has been to the airport lately knows the atmosphere
has changed. There are long lines and thorough bag checks, more
visible police and national guardsmen with giant guns. From all
angles, there is the show of increased security to deter
“terror” and to make Americans feel safe enough to
travel like the old days.
But who exactly is this heightened security designed to protect?
As many immigrants found out last month, certainly not them.
Last week, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
conducted raids at various California airports including Los
Angeles International (LAX), San Francisco International (SFO) and
San Jose International (SJIA). These raids resulted in 180 people
arrested ““ almost all Mexican immigrants on their way to
their families and jobs around the country. Amidst an increase in
national security, the INS calls the raids a crackdown on
“illegal” immigrants and smugglers’ use of
airports. But far from curbing immigration, raids incite panic in
the population, targeting and violating the civil rights of people
whose labor this country continues to profit from and abuse.
This is nothing new, as national security has been used to
justify attacks on immigrants since the early 20th century. In the
last 10 years, the INS budget has increased by 220 percent to
$171.6 million. Three quarters of these resources go into border
patrol, airport inspections, smuggling investigations, detainment
and deportation. With more armed agents than any other federal
agency, the INS’s primary function is punishment and
enforcement rather than “service.”
Such an extensive security apparatus is meant to protect
American borders and make travelers feel at ease. But this safety
does not pertain to the upwards of 700 migrants that have died
crossing the border since 1994. It also doesn’t apply to
those targeted by violent vigilante groups or the victims of last
week’s raids.
Proponents of immigration control pushed for similar crackdowns
after the World Trade Center bombings of 1993, resulting in tighter
rules and increased deportation. The connection between terrorism
and immigration reflected a decade dominated by conservative,
racist backlash typified by Proposition 187 ““ which denied
immigrants access to social services and education. To avoid a
similar trend, we must deconstruct the politics of immigration
policy, become conscious of the economic context of migration
patterns within the international market, and the forces that push
and pull immigrants north. To do so is to actively debunk the myth
that all immigrants pose a national security threat and to
challenge the practice of ineffective and sometimes violent
raids.
Despite the supposed need to crack down on “illegal”
immigration, these raids do nothing to change migration patterns.
The Feds themselves concede that such “sweeps” do not
break smuggling networks but only push smugglers to seek other
temporary routes. If the INS knows the ineffectiveness of its own
actions, why conduct raids?
Because the INS is notorious for its image of bureaucratic
inefficiency. It must answer calls for increased national security
and control of immigration. It must also atone for last
month’s embarrassing approval of student visas to two of
Sept. 11th’s dead hijackers. Raids are used to help overhaul
this tattered image. They are a politically inspired display of
force.
Such seizures also reflect widespread approval for racial
profiling in the name of security. Despite the INS’s claim
that they don’t arrest people on the basis of skin color,
raids target people who look “foreign.” Could over 180
Mexicans be arrested in a few days if their ethnic group was not
targeted? Are more Anglo-looking undocumented immigrants from
Europe or Canada victims of such assaults? No. Raids are racially
motivated, subjecting people of color to suspicion and
harassment.
Undoubtedly, these raids also function to quell
“unruly” workers. Fear is a powerful tool used to
remind immigrant laborers of their precarious status and to secure
the lowest possible wages. Immigrant workers are both indispensable
and continually mistreated.
Before September 11th, Washington’s vocabulary included
words like amnesty and permanent residency. The U.S. economic
machine needed cheap fuel in the form of low-wage workers. A
“new” relationship with Mexico was taking shape.
Today, the Bush administration faces a difficult challenge: how
to continue separating immigration from national security while
appearing tough on “foreign” entry. How to capitalize
on cheap labor while maintaining immigrants as a scapegoat for
economic recession. This is where economics and politics butt
heads.
While the language of terror and security dominates political
discourse, the raids at airports in California and elsewhere in the
West show how the tools of security are used to incite terror among
hardworking, immigrant people of color. Such politically motivated
assaults are irreconcilable and unjustified given the U.S.
economy’s constant need for a surplus of labor. Public
pressure on both the INS and local and national government
officials to put an end to raids can demonstrate that they are also
unacceptable.