Arizona and Immigration – Part 3: A Brief Reflection

Two days ago, I began a critical examination concerning Arizona’s new and controversial immigration law. On the first day, I examined both the Arizona House and Senate versions of the legislation. Yesterday, I considered the position and possible motivations of the state’s governor Jan Brewer. Today, I had originally planned to examine the manner in which race factors into this debate; however, I need to take a moment to briefly reflect and collect my thoughts.

As a student of anthropology, I have been interested in the notion of “the other” and how “otherness” is determined. “The other” is usually a subjected population because they lack agency within a certain context to assert their humanity as defined by the dominant society. In the United States, “otherness” is associated with political power. At one time or another, all immigrant groups entering America (with the possible exception of Western Europeans), have been “the other” – African slaves, Eastern Europeans, Asians, and previous Latino immigrants each experienced discrimination from the majority population as a result of their racial and cultural differences from whites. Gradually, each of these groups attained political power and became increasingly acknowledged as Americans: I believe that this process began in earnest during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/1960s and was somewhat realized with the election of President Barack Obama. Yet, this is an ongoing process as undocumented persons are currently “the subjected other.”

Here’s the thing: even before considering race (which I will do tomorrow), there exist key cultural differences between the two primary groups of stakeholders in this debate. One could make key distinctions between the undocumented population and the majority of Arizonians. Not only must issue of race be considered in this debate, but also the notion of “the nation” as defined by Benedict Anderson – “an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”. In the context of Anderson’s definition, I view the Arizona legislation and the state’s subsequent actions as a “nation-building,” or rather “nation-enforcing” project. The majority of Arizonians are imagining the political community of Arizona, as being limited to American citizens and the legislation in question is the mechanism that asserts the state’s legitimated sovereign right to engage in this process. I have little doubt that this is what’s going on here; the question on the table is, if it’s right?