Garcia, like many of the authors we read for last week, highlights a pattern that is getting a little redundant at this point. I mean this from the perspective of wishing that everyone would put sanctions on the US and get this country to stop acting like an impersonation of a Star Wars villain, not that it is tiresome or boring. On the whole this book would be a great introduction/overview for anyone ignorant to the actual machinations of the US, Canada, or Mexico as it relates to immigration/refugees and how these repeated patterns of displacement and humanitarian crisis are perpetuated. Although I think Garcia also dances around an issue that I have noticed gets danced around here, and in other texts. That is, this process perpetual repeats itself because the systems and structures of both our society and its foreign policy remain the same. It doesn't matter who is office, Reagan, Bush, Obama the US will do whatever is necessary to maintain both economic and hemispheric hegemony over the other nation sates of the region, period. While analyzing the impact and results of NGO's, lobbyist groups, and grassroots activists from every perspective from far-Left to Catholic priests is an important addition to cultural history it does not highlight the impetus for the creation of such groups. However, not engaging directly with the reality of capitalism and what its effects/affects are upon the region of study is a gross neglect of the relevancy of US economic interests and US led cultural hegemony that is at the forefront of Garcia's analysis.
Jason, I agree with you 100%. This semester we covered a on going historical theme of going from European Colonialism to US imposed Western Imperialism. It has been the same blueprint of the US being an opportunist nation and forcing its version of democracy to Latin American. With Garcia's book I am old enough to remember many of these events and even now it leaves a bitter taste that presidents like Reagan and Bush wanted to down play the mass amounts of brutal murders of refugees. By the time Obama came around, there was only so much he could do since the wheels were already in motion for decades. The way the presidential administrations handle real humanitarian crisis is appalling. The United Villains of America.
There is a point that you touched upon that I have also entertained throughout the course. And it is your wish that everyone would put sanctions on the US-- something that, after reading the amount of betrayals and abuses, one would think that Latin American governments would know by now. But it seems like they don't. May be our officials do not read history. In fact, just one or two of the modern day Latin AMerican presidents hold a phd!
In all seriousness, I think the problem lies in that Latin American governments do not operate, and have not been able to see themselves, as one operating geopolitical unit. This fragments the power of any of their actions. This goes in favor of US's foreign policy. US sees anything south to its border as Latin America and treats it as such.
This book elucidates the faulty logic, vast deficiencies, and the utter dehumanization involved in multiple countries' responses to the Central American refugee crisis. American involvement in the destabilization of Central America was very clear in the 1980's, yet, due to the logic of the Cold War, millions of people were escaping from conditions created by the United States were not given the resources to be integrated into neighboring societies. This makes sense as, just like the Chilean exiles in the 1970s, refugees from Central America in the United States were the physical representations of U.S. imperialism in front of American people. How could they accept a statement from a Salvadoran who was oppressed by the military that the United States was funding with a million dollars a day? How could they accept that Nicaraguans were coming to the United States to flee from a war in which the United States trained and funded the opposition? Cristina Maria Garcia made a claim that Nicaraguans received less benefits than people imagined due to the perception that they were escaping from communism, but Nicaraguans were 13 times more likely to receive political asylum than Guatemalan or Salvadoran refugees.
The case of Mexico is also egregious, especially considering its cooperation with the Guatemalan government and their military invasions of refugee camps in Chiapas. However, not enough attention was given to the fact that Mexico was experiencing an economic recession and hyperinflation in the 1980's, which made it an unattractive place for refugees to establish themselves. It also led many Mexicans of the era to express xenophobic tendencies since unemployment rose in that time. These actions in conjunction with the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act set the precedent for the waves of illegal immigration that come from Central America.
Unless I am mistaken that hyperinflation Mexico was experiencing was directly related to the US? I think you were spot on in your assessment that it is not until there are physical refugees that there is anything like a humanitarian response, if any. I thought this was also relevant when it came to the immediate attention the clergy seemed to garner as opposed to the relatively slow reaction brown refugees received. I need a puppy!
I also agree with your point that issues in Central America were/are not treated as humanitarian crises until there are physical refugees, but this must be because those with the power to provide aid are also at the root of the conflict. It was also interesting to see religious groups taking up the charge to provide some of the aid that governments were ignoring, but I wonder if they weren't also trying to clean up the public opinion of them.
Rafael, your comment about the Central American refugees being the physical embodiment of U.S. imperialism is spot on. Garcia did a thorough job of highlighting what she calls bureaucratic inconsistencies (and what I would call hypocrisy) of how Mexico, the US, and Canada politicized the refugee crises to achieve their own political ends.
It is unsurprising to read about how many governments claim the moral high ground when it comes to Central American crises. As Garcia discusses in chapter 3, the United States was not eager to accept responsibility for creating situations that led to refugees and sought ways to get out of hosting those refugees. Situations like the Guatemalan attack on the El Chupadero refugee camp became reasons to avoid allowing refugees into the country (59) or the way guerrillas used camps to bring weapons, food and medicine to their allies (53) stoked fears that Mexicans had for accepting refugees, too. Yet in both situations, the established power expressed moral reasons why they were already doing enough to help (like backing the very oppressive governments), and why it was acceptable to limit the aid provided to refugees. Not only that, but claiming refugee status was increasingly difficult for Central Americans.
Morality was/is used as a cover for these actions, but ultimately refugees are only accepted by North American governments when there is an economic interest in helping them (which is rare) or when there is a clear way to control the movement of these Central American people. This still goes on today: for example, I have students here in Newark whose parents were given visas as refugees that allows them to remain in the United States, but their movement and job opportunities are restricted, if they are permitted to work at all while they remain in legal limbo. Canada is shown in a more positive light here, as they accepted more Central American refugees percentage-wise, but politicians there still tend to use dehumanizing language ("they're being dumped on us"). Canada is in the position of having to react to US immigration policy, and I've read that now they are tightening their border control as a result of US policy, making it impossible for refugees to apply for asylum in multiple countries. Fear of refugees also seems to be a motive here, something which NGOs have been combating since the 1970s.
I agree with your points here, Katie, especially about Canada. While their language as you note betrays their beliefs, they also did not have to contend with as many refugees as other nations, making me wonder how much of their generosity was true and how much was because they knew that the number of refugees taking them up on their offers would be limited.
I found the connections between Seeking Refuge and the articles about human rights to have interesting overlaps, particularly in the area of NGOs. While this book showed the good that NGOs can do, it also raised questions for me about the ethics of such groups who operate outside the legal and diplomatic frameworks and have little oversight or accountability. I'm not trying to belittle or demean the work that they do or suggest that they are staffed by those with malicious intent, this course has highlighted the ways paternalistic and imperialistic thinking leaches into so many aspects of our culture. Given the power differential between organized NGOs and marginalized groups they work with, the possibility for exploitation, intentional or otherwise, seems real. When governments have come to rely on NGOs to do labor and diplomatic work that they can't or won't, where does the oversight come in? How do we know these groups are advocating for rights and laws and policies that protect and empower these marginalized groups? It's giving me a lot to think about.
One thing i would like have added to reading is what was the relationship between the Americans who fought for policy change to help the immigrants. Were these privileged liberal Arts students or were they from families that had traced their ancestry from the Braceros? I think exploring the preexisting relationships between activists in the United States and Latin America would strengthen the dehumanization angle by showing the arbitrary nature of citizenship in a nation state.
You brought up a really good point hat I hadn't considered before. The context within which these activist's work on is important when considering what they wanted to accomplish and to what extent they were able to achieve their goals.
I found the discussion of the role of religion and religious groups in both the practical work of providing direct physical assistance to refugees and especially in the political work of advocating for better and more humanitarian policy to be particularly of interest. We don’t often hear stories about the work of the Religious Left from the 1980s and 1990s, which is far more associated with the political rise of the Christian Right — and the willingness of faith groups to put their physical liberty and economic independence on the line to help refugees for reasons of faith is a powerful narrative. In particular, I find the government’s failure to consider what we attorneys call its “reputational risk” in its decision to prosecute the sanctuary movement through Operational Sojourner particularly telling — it seems, in essence, a tone deaf attempt to extend its imperialistic policies to silence U.S. citizens directly. (I love the image of the political cartoon showing a Border Patrol agent arresting Jesus and his apostles.)
Of course, as an attorney, I find the legal discussions of interest as well, especially as I look back on some of the asylum cases in which I was involved early in my legal career (although after the time period that is the subject matter of this book). The due process issues involved in immigration enforcement, of course, are once again front-page news, and the issue of our failure to extend a right to counsel to asylum applicants remains incredibly frustrating in light of the detention and deportation risks associated with ostensibly civil immigration enforcement.
I saw a lot of similiarities between this text and previous works we've read before in class. It's another example of how the US wants to assert their influence and power to other nations regardless of the repercussions that that may cause. In addition, it lso shows the inhumane ways in which refugees from these south and central american countries are treated. It should make people question today whether those "illegal immigrants" they're always harping about should be considered defacto refugees due to the ways in which the US has affected their government. Do we not have a responsibility to take these individuals in?
Seeking Refuge gives an explicit account of the horrors suffered by people caused by the US's Cold War "witch hunt" (communism) in collaboration with the Central American governments who, taking advantage of the political craze, used it to carry an "ethnic cleansing."
I understand that US had a major role in this humanitarian crisis but I also want to think about how some Central American governments targeted a specifically the Mayan populations who did not identify themselves with any state. These are the dangers of the "mixed-race harmony" discourse--where if you are not a mulatto or a ladino, you are not part of the state's project. This was reflected in the poor health conditions, infant mortality, and literacy rates of the Mayans compared to the ladino population in Guatemala (pgs 26-27). If you live in such harsh conditions, the logic would be to organize collectively and aggressively because they were left no choice. This is where governments, such as Guatemala, took that innate collective action to survive, and branded it with a communist banner. The perfect recipe to "erase" the unwanted subject of the state's project even though they were voiceless, heavily-exploited and in extreme poverty.
It is ironic, and has been the constant in the readings in this course, that most Indigenous populations are always the ones labeled as "unattuned" with the economic and/or political trends of the time we are studying. Each new trend is an invitation to our governments to lawfully, and forcefully, carry an "ethnic cleansing."
You bring up a great point about how marginalized communities within nation-states were some of the root causes of the Central American conflicts. The United States did play a large role in the Guatemalan Civil War, whether its causes or its continuities, but the racial disharmony between the ladinos and the Mayan communities go back to the colonial period. However, U.S. economic interests in Guatemala clashed with Mayan communities' desires for a more equitable distribution of land and also a communal way of exploitating that land. The U.S. government understood that they had an ally in the ladino-led government, and the ladino-led Guatemalan government understood that they had an ally in the United States who wanted to protect its agroexport interests in Central America at any costs, in addition to quelling any leftist movements in the region.
Garcia's book gives a focus on the horrors of the amnesty process and the US Asylum policy when pretending Central American refugee. Unlike other books that the class covered, Garcia dives more into the last 30 years presidential administrations and their efforts to control many Central American government by claiming that the US invasion is under the civil rights for Latin American people under the guise of humanitarian mission. The US was driven by its own greed and power and its desire to enforce its own imperialism over Mexico and the Central American region. On the Canadian side, the country was more receptive to immigration realizing that it would boost the country’s economy and lowering population rates. Garcia’s analysis goes up to the events of 9/11 and the new American demands for stronger borders and tighter immigration and asylum laws. This is when North American fears were heighten.
From Jenn: Seeking Refuge reads more like a social science study than a history book. It only provides a brief snapshot of Central America migration, but I appreciated the transnational approach. Although, I do have to say that it did illustrate change over time in immigration policy in Mexico, the United States, and Canada. It was interesting to see the dynamics between the three countries and how policy in one influenced policy in another. For instance, Canada seemed to want to be the more humane neighbor of the United States and accept more migrants. Also, how the United States pressured Mexico to do certain things as well, something that seems to still be going on today. This book really illustrates how political immigration is as well as how complicated immigration policies are in different countries. I really would like to know if immigration policy is so complicated simply countries want to make it as hard as possible to emigrate or is something else at work here? Is immigration policy complicated because it has to be, or can it be simplified? Is a public/private partnership possible in the United States like it is in Canada for resettling immigrants?
Garcia, like many of the authors we read for last week, highlights a pattern that is getting a little redundant at this point. I mean this from the perspective of wishing that everyone would put sanctions on the US and get this country to stop acting like an impersonation of a Star Wars villain, not that it is tiresome or boring. On the whole this book would be a great introduction/overview for anyone ignorant to the actual machinations of the US, Canada, or Mexico as it relates to immigration/refugees and how these repeated patterns of displacement and humanitarian crisis are perpetuated. Although I think Garcia also dances around an issue that I have noticed gets danced around here, and in other texts. That is, this process perpetual repeats itself because the systems and structures of both our society and its foreign policy remain the same. It doesn't matter who is office, Reagan, Bush, Obama the US will do whatever is necessary to maintain both economic and hemispheric hegemony over the other nation sates of the region, period. While analyzing the impact and results of NGO's, lobbyist groups, and grassroots activists from every perspective from far-Left to Catholic priests is an important addition to cultural history it does not highlight the impetus for the creation of such groups. However, not engaging directly with the reality of capitalism and what its effects/affects are upon the region of study is a gross neglect of the relevancy of US economic interests and US led cultural hegemony that is at the forefront of Garcia's analysis.
ReplyDeleteJason, I agree with you 100%. This semester we covered a on going historical theme of going from European Colonialism to US imposed Western Imperialism. It has been the same blueprint of the US being an opportunist nation and forcing its version of democracy to Latin American. With Garcia's book I am old enough to remember many of these events and even now it leaves a bitter taste that presidents like Reagan and Bush wanted to down play the mass amounts of brutal murders of refugees. By the time Obama came around, there was only so much he could do since the wheels were already in motion for decades. The way the presidential administrations handle real humanitarian crisis is appalling. The United Villains of America.
DeleteThere is a point that you touched upon that I have also entertained throughout the course. And it is your wish that everyone would put sanctions on the US-- something that, after reading the amount of betrayals and abuses, one would think that Latin American governments would know by now. But it seems like they don't. May be our officials do not read history. In fact, just one or two of the modern day Latin AMerican presidents hold a phd!
DeleteIn all seriousness, I think the problem lies in that Latin American governments do not operate, and have not been able to see themselves, as one operating geopolitical unit. This fragments the power of any of their actions. This goes in favor of US's foreign policy. US sees anything south to its border as Latin America and treats it as such.
This book elucidates the faulty logic, vast deficiencies, and the utter dehumanization involved in multiple countries' responses to the Central American refugee crisis. American involvement in the destabilization of Central America was very clear in the 1980's, yet, due to the logic of the Cold War, millions of people were escaping from conditions created by the United States were not given the resources to be integrated into neighboring societies. This makes sense as, just like the Chilean exiles in the 1970s, refugees from Central America in the United States were the physical representations of U.S. imperialism in front of American people. How could they accept a statement from a Salvadoran who was oppressed by the military that the United States was funding with a million dollars a day? How could they accept that Nicaraguans were coming to the United States to flee from a war in which the United States trained and funded the opposition? Cristina Maria Garcia made a claim that Nicaraguans received less benefits than people imagined due to the perception that they were escaping from communism, but Nicaraguans were 13 times more likely to receive political asylum than Guatemalan or Salvadoran refugees.
ReplyDeleteThe case of Mexico is also egregious, especially considering its cooperation with the Guatemalan government and their military invasions of refugee camps in Chiapas. However, not enough attention was given to the fact that Mexico was experiencing an economic recession and hyperinflation in the 1980's, which made it an unattractive place for refugees to establish themselves. It also led many Mexicans of the era to express xenophobic tendencies since unemployment rose in that time. These actions in conjunction with the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act set the precedent for the waves of illegal immigration that come from Central America.
Unless I am mistaken that hyperinflation Mexico was experiencing was directly related to the US? I think you were spot on in your assessment that it is not until there are physical refugees that there is anything like a humanitarian response, if any. I thought this was also relevant when it came to the immediate attention the clergy seemed to garner as opposed to the relatively slow reaction brown refugees received. I need a puppy!
DeleteI also agree with your point that issues in Central America were/are not treated as humanitarian crises until there are physical refugees, but this must be because those with the power to provide aid are also at the root of the conflict. It was also interesting to see religious groups taking up the charge to provide some of the aid that governments were ignoring, but I wonder if they weren't also trying to clean up the public opinion of them.
DeleteRafael, your comment about the Central American refugees being the physical embodiment of U.S. imperialism is spot on. Garcia did a thorough job of highlighting what she calls bureaucratic inconsistencies (and what I would call hypocrisy) of how Mexico, the US, and Canada politicized the refugee crises to achieve their own political ends.
DeleteIt is unsurprising to read about how many governments claim the moral high ground when it comes to Central American crises. As Garcia discusses in chapter 3, the United States was not eager to accept responsibility for creating situations that led to refugees and sought ways to get out of hosting those refugees. Situations like the Guatemalan attack on the El Chupadero refugee camp became reasons to avoid allowing refugees into the country (59) or the way guerrillas used camps to bring weapons, food and medicine to their allies (53) stoked fears that Mexicans had for accepting refugees, too. Yet in both situations, the established power expressed moral reasons why they were already doing enough to help (like backing the very oppressive governments), and why it was acceptable to limit the aid provided to refugees. Not only that, but claiming refugee status was increasingly difficult for Central Americans.
ReplyDeleteMorality was/is used as a cover for these actions, but ultimately refugees are only accepted by North American governments when there is an economic interest in helping them (which is rare) or when there is a clear way to control the movement of these Central American people. This still goes on today: for example, I have students here in Newark whose parents were given visas as refugees that allows them to remain in the United States, but their movement and job opportunities are restricted, if they are permitted to work at all while they remain in legal limbo. Canada is shown in a more positive light here, as they accepted more Central American refugees percentage-wise, but politicians there still tend to use dehumanizing language ("they're being dumped on us"). Canada is in the position of having to react to US immigration policy, and I've read that now they are tightening their border control as a result of US policy, making it impossible for refugees to apply for asylum in multiple countries. Fear of refugees also seems to be a motive here, something which NGOs have been combating since the 1970s.
I agree with your points here, Katie, especially about Canada. While their language as you note betrays their beliefs, they also did not have to contend with as many refugees as other nations, making me wonder how much of their generosity was true and how much was because they knew that the number of refugees taking them up on their offers would be limited.
DeleteI found the connections between Seeking Refuge and the articles about human rights to have interesting overlaps, particularly in the area of NGOs. While this book showed the good that NGOs can do, it also raised questions for me about the ethics of such groups who operate outside the legal and diplomatic frameworks and have little oversight or accountability. I'm not trying to belittle or demean the work that they do or suggest that they are staffed by those with malicious intent, this course has highlighted the ways paternalistic and imperialistic thinking leaches into so many aspects of our culture. Given the power differential between organized NGOs and marginalized groups they work with, the possibility for exploitation, intentional or otherwise, seems real. When governments have come to rely on NGOs to do labor and diplomatic work that they can't or won't, where does the oversight come in? How do we know these groups are advocating for rights and laws and policies that protect and empower these marginalized groups? It's giving me a lot to think about.
ReplyDeleteOne thing i would like have added to reading is what was the relationship between the Americans who fought for policy change to help the immigrants. Were these privileged liberal Arts students or were they from families that had traced their ancestry from the Braceros? I think exploring the preexisting relationships between activists in the United States and Latin America would strengthen the dehumanization angle by showing the arbitrary nature of citizenship in a nation state.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a really good point hat I hadn't considered before. The context within which these activist's work on is important when considering what they wanted to accomplish and to what extent they were able to achieve their goals.
Delete-Alexandra
DeleteI found the discussion of the role of religion and religious groups in both the practical work of providing direct physical assistance to refugees and especially in the political work of advocating for better and more humanitarian policy to be particularly of interest. We don’t often hear stories about the work of the Religious Left from the 1980s and 1990s, which is far more associated with the political rise of the Christian Right — and the willingness of faith groups to put their physical liberty and economic independence on the line to help refugees for reasons of faith is a powerful narrative. In particular, I find the government’s failure to consider what we attorneys call its “reputational risk” in its decision to prosecute the sanctuary movement through Operational Sojourner particularly telling — it seems, in essence, a tone deaf attempt to extend its imperialistic policies to silence U.S. citizens directly. (I love the image of the political cartoon showing a Border Patrol agent arresting Jesus and his apostles.)
ReplyDeleteOf course, as an attorney, I find the legal discussions of interest as well, especially as I look back on some of the asylum cases in which I was involved early in my legal career (although after the time period that is the subject matter of this book). The due process issues involved in immigration enforcement, of course, are once again front-page news, and the issue of our failure to extend a right to counsel to asylum applicants remains incredibly frustrating in light of the detention and deportation risks associated with ostensibly civil immigration enforcement.
I saw a lot of similiarities between this text and previous works we've read before in class. It's another example of how the US wants to assert their influence and power to other nations regardless of the repercussions that that may cause. In addition, it lso shows the inhumane ways in which refugees from these south and central american countries are treated. It should make people question today whether those "illegal immigrants" they're always harping about should be considered defacto refugees due to the ways in which the US has affected their government. Do we not have a responsibility to take these individuals in?
ReplyDelete-Alexandra
DeleteSeeking Refuge gives an explicit account of the horrors suffered by people caused by the US's Cold War "witch hunt" (communism) in collaboration with the Central American governments who, taking advantage of the political craze, used it to carry an "ethnic cleansing."
ReplyDeleteI understand that US had a major role in this humanitarian crisis but I also want to think about how some Central American governments targeted a specifically the Mayan populations who did not identify themselves with any state. These are the dangers of the "mixed-race harmony" discourse--where if you are not a mulatto or a ladino, you are not part of the state's project. This was reflected in the poor health conditions, infant mortality, and literacy rates of the Mayans compared to the ladino population in Guatemala (pgs 26-27). If you live in such harsh conditions, the logic would be to organize collectively and aggressively because they were left no choice. This is where governments, such as Guatemala, took that innate collective action to survive, and branded it with a communist banner. The perfect recipe to "erase" the unwanted subject of the state's project even though they were voiceless, heavily-exploited and in extreme poverty.
It is ironic, and has been the constant in the readings in this course, that most Indigenous populations are always the ones labeled as "unattuned" with the economic and/or political trends of the time we are studying. Each new trend is an invitation to our governments to lawfully, and forcefully, carry an "ethnic cleansing."
Johnny,
DeleteYou bring up a great point about how marginalized communities within nation-states were some of the root causes of the Central American conflicts. The United States did play a large role in the Guatemalan Civil War, whether its causes or its continuities, but the racial disharmony between the ladinos and the Mayan communities go back to the colonial period. However, U.S. economic interests in Guatemala clashed with Mayan communities' desires for a more equitable distribution of land and also a communal way of exploitating that land. The U.S. government understood that they had an ally in the ladino-led government, and the ladino-led Guatemalan government understood that they had an ally in the United States who wanted to protect its agroexport interests in Central America at any costs, in addition to quelling any leftist movements in the region.
Garcia's book gives a focus on the horrors of the amnesty process and the US Asylum policy when pretending Central American refugee. Unlike other books that the class covered, Garcia dives more into the last 30 years presidential administrations and their efforts to control many Central American government by claiming that the US invasion is under the civil rights for Latin American people under the guise of humanitarian mission. The US was driven by its own greed and power and its desire to enforce its own imperialism over Mexico and the Central American region.
ReplyDeleteOn the Canadian side, the country was more receptive to immigration realizing that it would boost the country’s economy and lowering population rates. Garcia’s analysis goes up to the events of 9/11 and the new American demands for stronger borders and tighter immigration and asylum laws. This is when North American fears were heighten.
From Jenn: Seeking Refuge reads more like a social science study than a history book. It only provides a brief snapshot of Central America migration, but I appreciated the transnational approach. Although, I do have to say that it did illustrate change over time in immigration policy in Mexico, the United States, and Canada. It was interesting to see the dynamics between the three countries and how policy in one influenced policy in another. For instance, Canada seemed to want to be the more humane neighbor of the United States and accept more migrants. Also, how the United States pressured Mexico to do certain things as well, something that seems to still be going on today. This book really illustrates how political immigration is as well as how complicated immigration policies are in different countries. I really would like to know if immigration policy is so complicated simply countries want to make it as hard as possible to emigrate or is something else at work here? Is immigration policy complicated because it has to be, or can it be simplified? Is a public/private partnership possible in the United States like it is in Canada for resettling immigrants?
ReplyDelete