Views » July 4, 2006 » Web Only

Immigrations Echoes

Immigration debate awash in Xenophobia.

By Mumia Abu-Jamal

Driven as much by presumed political necessity as by xenophobic fears, the immigration issue has grabbed headlines and the talking heads of the media over the past few months.

Recent mass demonstrations against proposed immigration restrictions have only fueled the issue further, and among blacks come echoes of nativism, a fear-driven rejection of these newcomers, who are “taking our jobs.”

While it can be argued that many of the jobs taken by Mexican immigrants are jobs that most Americans, black or white, won’t do, the fear remains, and black radio, newspapers, and other media are awash in expressions of concern, and frankly, xenophobia.

This happens, I’m convinced, in the context of a nation with a deep racial hierarchy, which traditionally places blacks at the permanent bottom; and during a period which showed, with painful clarity, that these historical rankings are still amongst us. Witness Katrina.

That said, perhaps history offers lessons for us in this time, threatened by change, that will allow us to find a way out of this cul-de-sac.

In a time of greatest peril, when Africans in the United States were fighting for their freedom from the American forces of slavocracy, two uniquely American communities came to their aid: Native peoples and Mexicans.

How so, you ask?

Before the Civil War, Americans fought at least two wars with the Seminoles, a people then living in Florida. The reason for the wars? The Seminoles, unlike other area tribes, refused to turn in black runaways from American plantations. U.S. Army General Thomas Jesup, who fought the Seminoles, with their hundreds of black warriors, was moved to write: “This, you may be assured, is a [N]egro, not an Indian war.”

When the pro-slavery, white-expansionist war went bad for the Seminoles, red and black Seminoles fled to Mexico (which abolished slavery in 1829), where they were given land, and joined the Mexican Army to defend the country from invading gringos. The Seminoles were led by Coacoochee (also known as Wild Cat), and he was assisted by a black man named John Horse.

Writer William Loren Katz, in his 1986 book Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage, informs us that Mexico became a home that wasn’t possible in the United States:

Seminoles arrived in a country that had ended slavery in 1829 and had welcomed slave fugitives ever since. Some three thousand U.S. blacks lived peacefully in Mexico, most of them far from the Rio Grande border. Periodically, slavehunting posses plunged across the river to seize black people for sale back home. Some Mexican politicians conspired with these desperadoes, the better to finance their political campaigns.

Seminole families had hardly settled down when in 1851 U.S. outlaw John “Rip” Ford rode into Mexico with a band of four hundred men. Wild Cat and John Horse were called upon to drive out the bandits, former Texas Rangers and unemployed Texans. Sixty Seminole fighters drove back the Texans without a casualty.

When black folks needed help the most, Mexico stood on freedom’s side. What does that mean, 150 years later? It means that Blacks and Browns have a shared history of resistance against oppression. It means that Blacks and Browns need not be the strangers they fear, nor the antagonists they dislike. History can open doors of recognition and long-lost remembrance. It can begin to heal, not the past, but the present.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Nice article from brother Mumia.

  I think it is also important to emphasize the diversity and complexity of a given society. Black people, brown people, white people - never really exist as totalities. People will differ in opinion depending on their personal perspectives - political, cultural, social, economic, educational, regional, and historical.

  Simplifed narratives and explanations are usually formed by those who control the media and how information is disseminated. The masses rarely have a voice; instead, we get snippets to satisfy our lazy thinking habits.

  Black people have never been a homogeneous people, so it is inaccurate to say that “black people are opposed to having illegal immigrants in the labor force.” Mexicans will also have varying viewpoints on how to respond to the immigration issue.

  It would be unfortunate and misdirected if the debate surrounding immigration descended into a discussion about what Mexican migrant workers are taking from black people.

  Once you get into a discussion about poor people, whether they are white, black, brown or yellow, arguing over who should get poor wages and poor healthcare opportunites, you have lost sight of the real issues.

  The larger issues surrounding the immigration debate are what really matters. What has been the effect of globalization on the American and Mexican economies? Who benefits from the depreciation of local farming and industry? Who does not benefit?

  What is most ironic is that appeals to nationalism are being raised, precisely at a time when global capital is at its highest. The wealthy can sit back and watch their global monetary investments grow, above and beyond the fluid boundaries of any given nation state, while the struggling masses rely on the physicality of their bodies to cross markets and physical boundaries to earn a living. The former are heralded as savvy investors, who gladly benefit from cheap labor abroad, an who will gladly buy clothes made in Bangledesh, the latter as transgressors who seek to undermine our soveriegnty as a nation.

  Different cultures are being affected, but it is poor people who are being punished and that’s the real issue.

  Posted by Epistrophy on Jul 5, 2006 at 6:13 PM

  Once again, Mumia Abu-Jamal sees better from behind death row’s cell bars than most of us do walking around “freely.” I hope his words will fall hard upon those who encourage us to fight with our own brothers and sisters like hungry dogs vying for scraps.  Is it really so hard for us to aim our anger and blame at those who dole out crumbs to us between courses at their perpetual banquet?

  I’m also wondering why In These Times has such a limp bio for brother Mumia.  “The subject of great debate” is what I’d expect the F.O.P. to say about him if they were addressing a hostile crowd.  And to not list a single one of his books under the “More Information” section?  Unbelievable!

  It’s fact, not opinion, that ANOTHER MAN HAS CONFESSED to the murder Mumia was convicted for, and it is also a fact that the courts have repeatedly refused to allow that confession to be heard in court.  The bench record of Judge Sabo has been documented as favoring the death penalty for Blacks, and his appeals show prosecutorial misconduct at a world record level in his preceedings.

  An accurate bio wouldn’t require going into the millions of actions, the fierce legal battles, and the dozens of countries involved in trying to save this man’s life.  But to simply call all of this a “great debate” is an injustice in itself.  We’ve seen National Public Radio’s cowardice as they backed off of airing Mumia’s brilliant radio commentaries—just because the F.O.P. told them to.  If the institutions for free speech and for justice in this country cannot call Mumia’s case what it is, his future, AND EACH OF OURS, is in grave danger.

  Posted by Mars on Jul 6, 2006 at 4:28 PM

  Mars: Nice commentary. Thanks for reminding people of what a farce our criminal justice system can be. FREE MUMIA!!!

  Posted by Epistrophy on Jul 6, 2006 at 7:49 PM

  What a bunch of nonsence, this article is so typical of liberalism. 

  Question:  Why are liberals always on the side of murderers, rapists, child molesters, dictators?

  More proof that LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER !!!

  Posted by tina1 on Jul 6, 2006 at 9:54 PM

  tina1

  Liberalism - A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

  Liberalism has also been applied to free markets and competition - features that conservatives embrace as well.

  “Liberalism” in the context of modern-day democracy seems very compatible with our system of government. Yet you refer to this as A MENTAL DISORDER? DICTATORS, RAPISTS, CHILD MOLESTERS?

  TRY READING. IT HELPS.

  Posted by Epistrophy on Jul 7, 2006 at 6:18 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 15 posts.