Am I pro-immigration? Well, I'm certainly against U.S. Imperialism

by Charles Chea

When we encourage immigration (legal or illegal), in many respects it encourages assimiliation - quite an irony because many of the people who protest U.S. imperial aggression are also pro-immigration. There's a book out there called Debating Immigration with an essay by Toni Morrisson, who makes some excellent points about immigration, specifically about non-black people of color and the tendency for these communities to become anti-black and pro-white. Whatever the reasons, it's a critical problem that is rarely discussed, but gravely needs to be.

Some assert that the racism of our most recent immigrants in the post-1960s can be attributed to Cold War politics (e.g. Dr. Cindy I-Fen Cheng's Contesting Chinese/American identities in the age of Cold War politics) and preferential treatment in U.S. immigration. Cubans, Southern Vietnamese, pro-independence Taiwanese, and others who often tend to be vehemently anti-Communist transform into big supporters of right-wing politics in the United States. Many of the Indians, other South Asians, Chinese, and Taiwanese who were wanted to fulfill occupations in a growing U.S. technology industry immediately moved into the suburbs, did not experience the stereotypical immigrant narrative of a beginning in poverty, and develop highly conservative leanings. Even immigrants of African and West Indian descent have been cited to be hostile against native African Americans and having difficulty understanding anti-blackness in the United States (for further reading, check out Dr. Vilna Bashi's "Neither Ignorance or Bliss: Race, Racism, and the West Indian Immigrant Experience").

Others argue that for many immigrants the goal is prosperity, where prosperity equals the suburbs and executiveness, and where all those qualities translate to U.S. whiteness. This is the reality. Most of the immigrants who come to the United States know very little about the legacy of MLK, Jr. or Malcolm X, the progressive roots of U.S.-based human and civil rights movements that were intended to benefit all colonized people, and that the intention of many pro-immigration groups is to resist the corporate and imperial positions immigrants so often dream about. Even in the case where education about racial stratification and racism was somehow spread throughout immigrant advocacy programs, how affective would the effort be, considering that you are dealing with strongly anti-Communist people (meaning anything remotely close to progressive politics) and impoverished people mainly worried basic necessities and trying their best to sustain in the U.S.? Anything that seems to be a possible offense to the status quo would be a difficult topic to successfully discuss, especially when you are dealing with thousands of people per year.

Immigration is not a problem, but the way in which it is carelessly handled is. Whereas conservatives and white nationalists would argue against it on the basis that it threatens the status quo and whiteness, I see it as the expansion of the middle-man position reminiscent of mulattoness in the South and the possible re-definition of whiteness. Take, for example, the North/South conflict of Ireland and the immigration of Irish pre-1960s. The conditions are quite similar to that of countries with Cold War related civil strife where loyalties are either with cultural nationalists or an intervening colonial nation and its values. Initially, the conflicts even permeated in the U.S. Irish enclaves, and their transnational political views would eventually determine their allegiances in the U.S. There were those who supported the struggle for black determination, while others supported the status quo. In time, because of the forgetfulness of multiple generations and U.S. strategies to disengage Irish-black allegiances, Irish-American organized support for black liberation (and even Irish liberation) is nearly extinct. There was nothing set up to assure the continuation of progressive politics, something very critical, especially considering that the U.S. had totally different plans on the other end of the spectrum.

Next