Amnesty for Undocumented Mexicans in the U.S.?

“Who’s the Illegal Alien? PILGRIM?!?!” (Chicano artwork)

This fall, a continuous flame is being carried from la Basílica de Guadalupe in Mexico City, Mexico, to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, USA, on foot.

The 3,300 mile journey is sponsored by the Tepeyac Association, a non-profit grouping of 40 community-based organizations in New York City. More than 2,000 runners from Mexico and the United States will participate in la Carrera Antorcha Guadalupana bearing a flaming torch, a symbolic expression of solidarity across state lines. The run has already passed through Matamoros, Tamaulipas, across the border and into Brownsville, Texas, and is on its way North with a planned stop at the White House in Washington, DC on December 7th. The route is perhaps a familiar one to many immigrants and Mexican migrant workers who have traveled North from their hometowns in Mexico. For decades now, there has been a romanticization of the journey North from Mexico at the same time that many journeyers experience it as a way of life, and often the sole option for economic survival. That this particular journey is being billed as a “pilgrimage”, rather than what can be a grueling routine, is significant. The word “pilgrimage” is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “A journey to a sacred place; a long journey of exalted purpose or moral significance”. Most often the term is associated with religious ritual, in this case the run represents both aspects. This race is dedicated to the Virgen of Guadalupe, it was initiated on October 29 by the Mexican Olympic gold medal winner Ana Guevera, at the site of the Virgen of Guadalupe’s appearance, and will finish December 12th, the anniversary of the apparition. That St. Patrick’s in New York City is the destination and culmination of the cross-country trek carries more than religious import; it expresses pregnant symbolism through the linking of two nations that have become one for many individuals, workers, employers, families, neighborhoods, organizations and communities, those that are geographically proximate as well as dispersed.

The conceptualization of community pervades contemporary migration debates, the political realm of voting rights for nationals living abroad, and sociological as well as anthropological studies of cross-border relations. The runners carry banners naming them “Mensajeros por la dignidad de un pueblo dividido por la frontera”, “Messengers for the dignity of a people divided by the border”, which directly challenges spatial and political perceptions of community. A widely-used term in academic discourse today is transnationalism, which has been used to refer to the activities of hometown associations such as Tepeyac as well as the mere practice of sending back remittances from the U.S. to family and friends at home, therefore sustaining community across borders. It has also been defined as existence in a ‘social field’ which is inextricably linked to two nations. Without delving too deeply into a discussion over the classifications and distinctions which define “true” transnational activity, we can explore relevant questions the debate raises. How does transnationalism fit into our perception of community, and what are the implications for membership?

Mario Nerja, the Tepeyac Association’s coordinator, states clearly the purpose of the run, “to carry the message of support for a general amnesty and the legalization of more than 9 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. In this way, they would become legal, permanent residents in this country.” (The Brownsville Herald, 11/5/2002). This is a hope-inspiring statement, a call for attention to the civil and political rights of persons who reside in our communities but are not seen as “belonging”. It is also an appeal to the U.S. government, made by Mexican citizens, non-citizens, and perhaps some undocumented themselves, on behalf of their fellow nationals. In this case, as is increasingly the case in an age of free trade, open markets and heavy flow of goods, capital, labor, and even government across borders, that definition of “national”, and the corresponding assumed allegiance to one “nation” is, of course, elusive as well.

However, we find ourselves at a crucial juncture where we can not afford to allow the elusivity of definitions and the intentionally perpetuated apathy toward implications of free trade and economic inequality across our border with Mexico impede efforts toward taking action. The transnational orchestration of a shared political project has the clear objective of obtaining amnesty, which may be increasingly out of reach. On September 5th, 2001, Presidente Vicente Fox and President George Bush met to discuss immigration policy, border relations, and the possibility for an amnesty for the more than 3 million undocumented Mexicans living in the United States. The resulting legislation, bill 245i, which would grant a blanket amnesty to Mexicans without documents residing in the U.S. as of February, 2001, was dropped after September 11, 2001. Now Fox is gearing up for a PR campaign this winter, hoping to press the issue with the United States and also regain the faith of the bi-national Mexican constituency who he now relies on for support. However, Fox may be unable to re-direct the current momentum of U.S. immigration policy, which is focusing on reinforcing border patrols, closed borders, drastically restricting family unification visas, and includes Attorney General John Ashcroft’s call for the arrest and deportations of 300,000 undocumented aliens.

It has been made clear that Mexican migrants, immigrants, and residents in the U.S. play a vital role in both the U.S. and Mexican economies; the U.S. agricultural industry as well as urban employers rely heavily on Mexican labor, and projected remittances to Mexico for 2002 are estimated at $10 billion, a sharp increase from $5.8 billion in 1999 (Migration News, http://migration.ucdavis.edu). Beyond the economic statistics, a community is growing, one that is diverse in composition as well as geographic dispersion, but which finds commonality in the cause for pushing legalization. How long will we fight to be granted a general amnesty every few years? Does this solve the problem? It seems that it only exacerbates tensions and conflict between liberals and conservatives whose nativist sentiments are inflamed at the proposition of legalizing 4 milllion undocumented Mexicans with one gesture, and seemingly without justification. Nor are liberals satisfied, since an amnesty necessarily has defining parameters of who will be included and excluded, and is often used instrumentally as a political tool rather than a serious solution. The schizophrenic character of the condemnation and simultaneous overlooking of undocumented residents in the U.S. is illustrated in the recent tragic D.C. area sniper investigation. Two undocumented Mexican men in a white van were forcefully arrested and ordered deported while the FBI assured all other undocumented residents their legal status would not be investigated if they were to call in tips. If national security is facilitated by unity, then we are facing a growing threat, and one which needs to be confronted. The continued marginalization of undocumented residents of both Mexican nationality as well as other foreign nationals who live, work, participate in, and belong in what is called the United States is furthering disunity with ominous implications for the immediate future.