OU’s Immigration Teach-In
L to R: Patty Limerick (CU), Katherine Benton-Cohen (Georgetown), César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández (Denver), Tomás R. Jiménez (Stanford), Alan Kraut (American)
Yesterday I had the great pleasure of participating in OU’s 6th annual Teach-In — a single-day lecture series focused this year on American Immigration in Global and Historical Context.
Katherine Benton-Cohen, a history professor at Georgetown kicked off the day, speaking on “Inventing the Immigration Problem — Immigration Policy a Century Ago and Now.” She focused on the work of the Dillingham Commission (1907-1911), which studied a wide range of issues relating to then-recent migration to the United States. The commission ultimately released more than 40 reports spanning some 29,000 pages, and it’s recommendations were widely implemented. Fascinatingly, Benton-Cohen challenged two core ideas of the commission: that (1) immigration was a problem, and (2) that the federal government should solve that problem.
Immprof César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández (Denver) spoke about his new book: Migrating to Prison. César offered insights about his own personal history — growing up in South Texas — and how those experiences influenced his academic career. He entranced the audience with descriptions of the Port Isabel Detention Center and the Berks Family Residential Center. He drew people in with stories of individual detainees. And he ended with a call for the end of immigration detention.
Tomás Jiménez, a sociologist at Stanford, spoke about “Defying Caricatures: American Needs and America Wants Legalization.” His talk was uniquely grounded in data. He started out by discussing migration generally: showing the audience how unauthorized migration is declining, how the border has never been more under control, and how violent crime declines in neighborhoods when immigration rates climb. He transitioned into discussion of legalization: noting the current lack of a legalization program, while emphasizing the varied benefits of DACA as as quasi-legalization effort. (In one study that he led, Jiménez discovered that children of mothers with DACA had significantly better mental health than children of mothers without DACA!). He concluded by noting the widespread support among Americans for some sort of legalization program.
Alan Kraut, a historian at American University discussed “Fit for America? The Perennial Fear That Immigrants Are Unassimilable.” He situated the natavist rhetoric of President Trump and his advisors (Bannon, Miller) in a historical context, noting that their concerns about who is fit to migrate to the United States (for example, because of concerns they will become a “public charge”) is “old wine in new bottles.” He introduced the audience to the early 20th century works of Americans Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard,who both saw at least certain types of migration (by inferior races) as a national handicap. Their works, it turns out, greatly informed Nazi thought. (What an export to be proud of!).
Patty Limerick, a history professor at CU and the faculty director of the Center of the American West, spoke about “Desert Crossing, Carrying Capacities, and Assimilation: Rethinking the History of Immigration.” She made connections between the desert crossings by migrants to California around 1849-50 and the desert crossings of modern-day migrants from Mexico through the American southwest. She talked in particular about the private relief efforts in both eras, looking to save travelers from death from lack of water. She also spent time dismissing the argument that humans, like animals, have a certain “carrying capacity” that limits any given nation’s ability to accept more migrants. Finally, she spoke about the benefits of invitational as opposed to coercive assimilation.
The day ended with a panel discussion among the five speakers that ranged from how they stay positive to their hopes for the future.
If you’re interested in seeing the lectures in full, they’re available here:
-KitJ