Lear Matthews is Professor Emeritus and former Lecturer at University of Guyana. He is author of “English Speaking Caribbean Immigrants: Transnational Identities” and Co-creator of the video “Dis Time Nah Lang Time”. He has written extensively on the Caribbean Diaspora.
Most people who emigrate from their homeland to North America, Europe and other parts of what is referred to as the developed world are influenced to do so by myriad “push”/ “pull” factors. They anticipate better economic, healthcare and political conditions and perhaps to be “accepted” in the new environment.
For many, these expectations have been met with varying degrees of fulfillment of the elusive “dream”. Some may also plan to return to the home country of their own volition, but the majority have made resettlement a permanent experience. They contribute to the economic growth of their adopted country, while sending remittances back home.
A large number of immigrants in the United States are from the Caribbean and Latin America. Preoccupied with efforts to improve their economic well-being, more often than not, they manage the acculturation process with true grit. Notably, for many, their newly realized identity and ethnic casting as a “marginalized” or “minority group” in their adopted home is a stark reality that does not escape them.
The recent United States Presidential elections reveal some disturbing realities. The term “mass deportation”, though not clearly defined, has been used to describe an unspecified action/strategy for deporting a substantive number of persons, some seeking asylum, others attempting to cross the border either at Ports of Entry or make what is described as illegal crossings. Such a potentially restrictive US immigration policy has not been seen since the 1940’s. The Southern border is described by some politicians as a war zone, while referring to all immigrant crossings as “an invasion”.
Terms such as “undocumented persons”, “foreigners”, “mentally ill”, “Illegal Aliens”, “zero tolerance”, “babies in cages” and a blanket statement about “criminal elements” have been indiscriminately used before and during the 2024 election season to describe immigrants and their families. No clear distinction is made as to whether those targeted were born in the US or emigrated from their respective “home country.” Are documented immigrants, including “Green Card Holders” and those who became “Naturalized Citizens” really exempt from the so-called “deportation sweep”? Does the label only apply to those who are “waiting at the border”?
These questions warrant serious consideration in light of the potential radical changes and the rhetoric used to describe the situation. This is particularly important because the incoming players of the new administration seem to have no intention of abiding by established US Immigration Laws. They also seem determined to prime their credentials as anti-immigrant crusaders, seeing border crossing as an “invasion” and having no empathy for those whose lives will be devastated by the separation of families.
Another problem with “Mass Deportation” is that some of those who may be targeted for deportation could have been residing in the US for decades. Are “Dreamers” to be included? If so, they would be separated and many of them sent to countries they do not know. It would also threaten “birthright citizenship”. While politicians see immigrants as a valuable “voting bloc,” others in the general public look for validation of their “fear” of immigrants. It is also interesting to note that the so-called immigration problem is erroneously viewed by some as primarily an “Hispanic problem”, while not considering the economic impact on various industries and communities.
In this regard, the governor of Illinois warned that any massive deportation will create a serious job shortage in industry, construction and agriculture in the United States. It is worth noting that in a recent election victory speech, the importance of “a legal pathway for immigrants” was mentioned, followed by a warning about the necessity for “mass deportation”. Clearly this was an attempt to have it both ways in order to please a broad constituency. This is clearly an example of political maneuvering by dual messaging. A hidden but consequential dimension of this untethered plan to deport “masses” is that it suggests mandatory detention. In this regard, privately-owned Immigration Detention Centers will continue to expand as a booming industry.
As we explore this topic and its implications, it is important to reference the provisions of the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965. That policy abolished the national origins quota system, which limited immigration based on nationality. It introduced a “preference system,” prioritizing family reunification and skilled workers. It allows immigrants from all countries to apply for visas based on their skills and family ties to US citizens or permanent residents, instead of their country of origin. This has had an impact on the culture and demographics of the United States, clearly diversifying the immigrant population. However, these changes appear to have aroused fears of “the browning of America”.
The day after the 2024 elections, my neighbour, an immigrant from Guatemala who is a management consultant said: “Esta manana derrame una lagrima por America” (This morning I shed a tear for America). There is already discussion about the post-election impact on long-time US resident immigrants who, concerned about being targeted, will make the journey to the Canadian border to seek asylum. Indeed protecting the US border has always been problematic, but a comprehensive, impactful solution must include constructively engaging both the sending and recipient countries.
This analysis raises crucial questions about why people choose to come to the USA. Furthermore, queries have been made about the extent to which immigrants compete with “locals” for jobs or do jobs others are unwilling or unable to do. Politicians have used the amorphous term “Immigration Problem” to justify the imposition of harsh measures to control the border. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union make the more humanitarian argument that the government should be less hawkish on immigration. A more balanced reform strategy is needed. Immigrants in the USA are faced with a stark dilemma: Newcomers, regardless of their immigration status are caught in a contradictory situation between opportunity and unwelcoming restrictions. They are seeking life chances in good faith only to become transnational pawns in a perpetual political game.
