Rights, obligations and the making of modern immigration laws
| Published date | 01 March 2013 |
| Date | 01 March 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229113489391 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Rights, obligations and
the making of modern
immigration laws
Amardo Rodriguez
Abstract
States across the United States are increasingly enacting harsh and punitive immigration
laws to encourage whatproponents refer to as self-deportation. This paper examines the
ideological forces that are nurturing and legitimizing this movement. It specifically focuses
on the notion of the good citizen as an ideological construct that inherently makes the
undocumentedimmigrant a threat that must be neutralized for thesake of maintaining law
and order. In this way, the good citizen emerges as a natural threatto the undocumented
immigrant,as the good citizen is presumablyfirst and foremost obligatedto be law-abiding,
including upholding laws that aim to push undocumented immigrants to self-deport. This
paper looks at how these new immigration laws reify and expand this threat through the
notion of good citizenship.
Keywords
Immigration, undocumented immigrants, communication theory, intercultural communi-
cation theory, immigration laws, citizenship, opposition to immigration, The Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850, just laws, unjust laws, Martin Luther King, Jr
Introduction
States across the United States are increasingly enacting harsher and harsher immigration
laws. These laws arepassing with overwhelming popular support and statesare promising
Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York,
NY, USA
Corresponding author:
Amardo Rodriguez, Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor, Department of Communication
and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, New York, NY 1, USA.
Email: rodrigu@syr.edu
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
13(1) 18–33
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229113489391
jdi.sagepub.com
aggressive enforcement. South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Oklahoma, Vir-
ginia, Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi, amongst others, now have immigration laws
with provisions that require law enforcement officials to check the immigration status
of any suspect they believe may be in the country illegally, criminalize the sheltering, hir-
ing, and transporting of undocumentedimmigrants, prohibit stateor local officials or agen-
cies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws, allow for the warrantless
arrest of those suspected of being in the country illegally, denymost non-emergency state
benefits to illegal immigrants 18 years old and older, require people to prove legal resi-
dency when applying for benefits or renewing their eligibility, and bar undocumented
immigrants from attending all public universities.
These new immigration laws now sweeping the US have origins in a 2006 report
authored by the Center for Immigration Studies, which claims to provide ‘‘immigration
policymakers,the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable
information abo ut the social, econo mic, environmenta l, security, and fis cal consequences
of legal and illegalimmigration into the UnitedStates.’’ The report, titled Attrition through
enforcement: a cost-effective strategy to shrink the illegal population,aimstocounterthe
claim that forcibly removing the 11 million plus undocumented immigrants in the US is
unworkable and therefore the only reasonable solution is legalizing these persons through
an amnesty program. According to this report, such a program is most ‘‘likely to result in
large numbers of ineligible individuals receiving status, including terrorists, and will
spawn new illegal immigration.’’ This program should therefore be discouraged, which,
accordingto the report, means devising a more effectiveand efficient way of reducing‘‘the
size of the illegal population [which] in turn will reduce the fiscal and social burdens that
illegal immigration imposes on communities.’’ The report claims that the
purpose of attrition through enforcement is to increase the probability that illegal aliens will
return home without the intervention of immigration enforcement agencies. In other words,
it encourages voluntary compliance with immigration laws through more robust interior law
enforcement. When combined with a strategy to improve border security, this approach will
bring about a significant reduction in the size of the illegal alien population and help deter
future illegal immigration.
— (Vaughan, 2006)
Core elements of this new attrition strategy that aim to ‘‘increase the heat’’ on undo-
cumented immigrants include:
Eliminating access to jobs through mandatory employer verification of Social
Security numbers and immigration status.
Ending misuse of Social Security and Internal Revenue Service identification
numbers, which undocumented immigrants use to secure jobs, bank accounts,
drivers’ licenses, and other privileges, and improving information-sharing among
key federal agencies.
Increasing apprehensions and detention of illegal immigrants through partnerships
between federal immigration authorities and state and locallaw enforcement agencies.
Rodriguez 19
To continue reading
Request your trial