“`html
Photo: Mary Altaffer/AP Photo
During the presidential debate, Kamala Harris cracked up when Donald Trump ranted about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, supposedly snatching and eating local residents’ cats and dogs. The vice president rolled her eyes and broke into a “This dude is crazy” chuckle.
Trump’s slander was dotty, but it was also chilling. And yet, despite being thoroughly debunked, the Trump campaign, including Ohio’s own JD Vance, continued to latch onto the attacks against Haitians and other immigrants.
How did we get here, where such outlandish fictions about people who come to the U.S. can take hold of the body politic? This has been a long slide. And while the American right deserves much of the blame, liberals and progressives have, however unwittingly, contributed to the ways we think about immigrants too.
While the right has embraced anti-immigration politics as a means to appeal to a white voter base energized by the threat of the Other, the left has stopped pushing back. Instead, politicians desperate to court moderate voters and a media that follows their lead have employed narratives and buzzwords implying that immigrants are seedy, animalistic, and dangerous.
To see how this sort of thing takes root and spreads, consider the word “migrant.” Today, it’s the term of art from both the right and the left. “Nearly 7.3 million migrants have illegally crossed the southwest border under President Biden’s watch, a number greater than the population of 36 individual states,” Fox News warned earlier this year, without noting that many, if not most, were seeking relief from government oppression, violence, and other dangerous and demeaning chaos. Meanwhile, the leftist daily news show “Democracy Now!” reported on people new to the U.S. being left in the cold in big cities, including New York, and called these neglected people “migrants.” The Nation titled a series of first-person accounts of immigrants “Migrant Voices.”
It used to be fairly rare to call human beings migrants. From the 16th to 19th centuries, the word mostly referred to birds and other animals that moved back and forth between different climates and terrains every year, not from desire or planning but from pure, immutable instinct.
By the early 20th century, “migrant” in the U.S. had commonly come to refer to Mexicans crossing north to do agricultural labor in states including Texas, California, and Colorado, following seasonal crops. The notion was that, unlike immigrants who uprooted their lives to resettle, migrants came for economic reasons and didn’t fully intend to stay.
Not all the people labeled as migrants, however, fit that bill. Some settled for good in the U.S. and during hot economic times came to be considered a permanent fixture of the American labor market, even while deemed social and racial inferiors.
Not so today. Now, everyone who leaves a poor or troubled country and comes north to the United States is a “migrant.” This is how they’re described by the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, CNN, and other major media.
The word “migrant” implies that they’re traveling around unsettled: rolling stones with no intention of gathering moss and no right to land in one place.
As Al Jazeera has commented, “migrant” has “evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanizes and distances, a blunt pejorative.”
In recent years, voices have popped up to renounce the use of “migrant” — as Al Jazeera did in 2015 — or at least question its use. The English scholar of international affairs Alexander Betts uses the term “survival migration” to refer to how people are compelled to cross borders in order to live, even if they are not technically refugees under international law. The International Organization for Migration adds an adjective, making the phrase “vulnerable migrants,” to refer to people needing protection and help, even if they are not refugees. Those voices, though, are few and far between, with the one-word use of “migrant” continuing to grow and negative connotations increasingly becoming attached to it.
The philologist Victor Klemperer wrote about these kinds of subtle language shifts under the Nazi regime. In his definitive study, “The Language of the Third Reich,” Klemperer, who himself narrowly avoided death at the hands of the Nazis, was less interested in the obvious language shifts — the kind of thing any antifascist would have recognized. Instead, he focused on the unnoticed changes, the ones that slipped by almost everyone; he called it “the language of hysteria” and “the language which writes and thinks for you.”
Though it crept in quietly, these shifts of meaning could have dramatic effects, being used, for example, to demonize whole swaths of society.
“` In today’s world, we need to pay attention to these unnoticed changes, starting with the term “migrant,” but that’s just the beginning.
The shift to “migrant” has brought along other dehumanizing buzzwords that paint immigrants in a negative light. Both Republicans and Democrats use terms like “invasion,” “waves,” and “surges” to describe immigrants, further perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
While Republicans blame immigrants for the country’s problems, Democrats have also adopted a harsh stance on immigration, moving further to the right over the years. The use of terms like “criminal alien” and “illegal alien” have further dehumanized immigrants, leading to harmful policies and practices.
The focus on “border security” post-9/11 has led to increased surveillance and enforcement measures, with little consideration for the human cost. Both parties have contributed to the expansion of the Border Patrol and the construction of barriers, further isolating immigrants.
Republicans have dominated the conversation on immigration through fear-mongering tactics, while Democrats have failed to challenge these narratives. Their lackluster response to anti-immigrant sentiments has only reinforced harmful stereotypes.
Instead of defending immigrants, Democrats are now trying to outdo Republicans in tough rhetoric and militaristic approaches to immigration. Political ads from Democratic candidates in key swing districts reflect this shift towards a more aggressive stance on border security.
It’s no wonder that many people are swayed by false claims about immigrants when even Democrats are leaning towards harsher immigration policies. The current political climate does little to address the root causes of immigration issues and instead perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
She never directly connects immigration politics to the fact that both of her parents were immigrants, from Jamaica and India. Like most immigrants, they came to America with energy, industry, and creativity. Instead, when discussing immigration, Harris focuses on her work as a border state prosecutor, targeting drug cartels and gang members. She emphasizes her support for tough border control measures and promises to increase border agents and combat trafficking.
Her speech at the Democratic National Convention reiterated these themes, promising a bipartisan immigration bill that offers little to immigrants. Harris’s platform only offers an “earned pathway to citizenship,” which may not be as hopeful as it sounds. A House bill co-sponsored by Reps. Salazar and Escobar requires immigrants without documentation to pay a hefty fee and have their wages garnished to compensate American workers for perceived job losses.
Escobar, who comes from a family of immigrants, knows the value that immigrants bring to the country. Yet, the language used in the bill and by Democrats in general does not reflect this reality. A survey shows that the majority of Democrats support legalizing the status of unauthorized immigrants, encouraging them to become citizens, and easing the process for those fleeing violence to come to the U.S.
Youthful voters, a key demographic for Democrats, tend to be more pro-immigrant. Democrats must consider whether their fear of opposition and reluctance to use truthful language on immigration issues is hindering their ability to appeal to voters.
