Speaking Spanish in the US. Janet M. Fuller
objections to statues of Confederate generals. Regarding the previously mentioned plans for new Oñate monuments in Albuquerque and at the El Paso airport, numerous public discussions were held, newspaper editorials were published and letters to the editor were written. Ultimately, the El Paso airport statue was installed, but it was renamed ‘The Equestrian’ in an effort to allay opposition. In Albuquerque, planners modified the original design by adding a second monument depicting the land before European arrival (Alcorn, 2018). In the wake of the White supremacist violence at rallies defending Charlottesville, Virginia’s statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in 2017, protests and opposition intensified. In 2018, the city of Santa Fe suspended the Entrada reenactment, and held the Fiesta de Santa Fe without it (you can read some reactions to the change in the New York Times article, ‘New Mexico grapples with its version of Confederate tributes: A celebration of Spanish conquest’ at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/us/new-mexico-la-entrada.html, accessed 1 February 2018).
(Im)migration and Spanish in the US
As we have seen, the earliest historical presence of Spanish in the US was due to colonization and conquest, rather than immigration. However, while some descendants of treaty citizens may have managed to retain or reacquire Spanish, the overwhelming force of linguistic shift to English means that migration has been a key factor in Spanish’s continued presence in the US. Spanish-speaking migrants hail from a variety of countries, and they have myriad personal, professional and political reasons for coming to the US. Some come as refugees escaping violence or persecution, whereas others come to pursue educational, economic or professional opportunities. They also encompass people from a wide range of socio-economic statuses and educational backgrounds.
Scholars emphasize that migration patterns are shaped by both push factors and pull factors. Push factors are conditions in migrants’ countries of origin that contribute to migration, such as natural disasters, political violence, gangs or high unemployment. Pull factors, on the other hand, are rooted in the receiving country and include political or religious freedom, labor demand (and recruitment of migrant workers) and educational opportunities. These societal and structural factors condition overall patterns, but of course people’s individual circumstances also play a role in their decisions regarding migration.
The demographics of immigration
In the last chapter, we noted that many people in the US erroneously think that all Latinxs as well as all speakers of Spanish are immigrants, but the actual percentages are just 38% and 47%, respectively (ACS 2017 Five-year estimates). Similarly, and similarly inaccurately, public discourse often equates immigration with Mexican immigration. In reality, while Mexico is the most common country of origin among immigrants, the rate of new immigration from Mexico has slowed. In fact, more Mexicans now leave the US than come to it, resulting in a net decrease in the number of Mexican immigrants living in the US (Zong & Batalova, 2018). Moreover, in most years since 2010, more Asians than Latinxs have migrated to the US and in 2017 the top country of origin of new arrivals was India (Radford, 2019).
So too, many people seem to assume that a majority of immigrants are in the US without authorization. In reality, it is less than a quarter – 23% (Radford, 2019). Further, almost half of all immigrants in the US are naturalized citizens and a little over a quarter are legal permanent residents (Radford, 2019). Moreover, the overall number of unauthorized immigrants has declined steadily since peaking in 2007, with the 2017 numbers representing a 14% reduction (Radford, 2019). In addition, the category of unauthorized immigrants includes people with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). TPS allows migrants from certain countries to stay in the US when the government designates it too dangerous for them to return home because of armed conflict or natural disaster. DACA, a program created via Executive Order by President Obama in 2012, grants temporary status (without a path to citizenship) to certain individuals brought into the US as children before 2007. Essentially all the research has shown DACA to have had positive impacts on the overall economy as well as on participants and their families, and not to have negatively impacted job prospects or wages for the rest of the population (Kurtzleben, 2017).
In 2017, President Trump suspended DACA as part of a broader effort to reduce both authorized and unauthorized immigration. The Trump administration also terminated TPS protections for most countries and instituted a ban on migrants from certain Muslim-majority countries. These changes to immigration policy have faced numerous legal challenges based on claims that they are discriminatory, and the ongoing court battles are expected to take years to resolve. As this book goes to print, DACA is no longer accepting new applications but renewals are being processed for the 700,000 people already enrolled. However, the status of DACA and TPS are subject to further policy changes and judicial decisions; for up-to-date information, see the National Immigration Law Center website, https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca.
The terminology of immigration: Unauthorized immigrants and the i-word
Given that public discourse often makes reference to ‘illegal immigration’ and sometimes includes claims that one’s grandparents came to the US ‘the right way’ in contrast with today’s ‘illegal immigrants,’ we want to problematize this notion as well as the use of the word illegal. In so doing we will also highlight a few key moments in the history of US immigration policy.
For more than a hundred years following US independence, immigration was largely unrestricted. Thus, essentially anyone who wanted to come to the US could do so. This open immigration policy began to change in the late 19th century, as nativists expressed opposition to the growing number of immigrants, especially those they considered different from immigrants who had arrived earlier (much like contemporary nativists, although the ‘new immigrants’ of the early 20th century are the ‘old immigrants’ of today). Congress imposed various race-based restrictions on who was allowed to come to the US; Asians were excluded, and in the 1920s immigration from southern and eastern Europe was strictly limited. Thus, the possibility of immigrating legally was sharply curtailed.
The new immigration laws of the 1920s did not establish limits for Latin American countries, primarily in order to allow US businesses a continued supply of migrant labor from Mexico. However, people wishing to enter the US via Mexico were subject to literacy and health tests that were sometimes administered arbitrarily and they had to pay a fee, which was prohibitive for many (Hernandez, 2017; Ngai, 2004). Thus, many migrants continued to cross the border as they had done previously, without going through an official port of entry. In 1929, Congress passed a law designed specifically to impact Mexicans; for the first time, entering the country outside an official port of entry was made a crime, one that could be punished with fines and imprisonment as well as deportation (Hernandez, 2017). This change has had a dramatic impact not only how cross-border migrants are treated in the legal system but also on how they are portrayed in policy debates and broader public discourse; with ‘entering the country unlawfully’ constituted as a criminal act, migrants are framed as criminals.
Regardless of whether they entered the country unlawfully or they committed the civil infraction of overstaying their visa, we reject the use of the label ‘illegal’ to refer to people who are in the US without authorization, just as we would not apply this label to drivers who violate speed limits or even to convicted felons. In other words, we reject the idea that any person is ‘illegal.’ As we stress throughout this book, language is inseparable from the sociopolitical world, and the ways in which we talk about people have real-world consequences. Like a growing number of scholars, activists and journalists who want to ‘drop the i-word’ in media coverage and public debate (see Race Forward’s website at https://www.raceforward.org/practice/tools/drop-i-word or ABC New’s coverage at https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/linguists-york-times-illegal-neutral-accurate/story?id=17366512#.UGoRvhwsGiw), we believe that calling people ‘illegals’ is not only inaccurate,