Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
AC Harms: A/t - #4 “Representations Don’t Shape Policy” [2/3] 181
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC Harms: A/t - 4 “Representations Don’t Shape Policy” [3/3] 1 82
2AC Harms: A/t - #4 “Representations Don’t Shape Policy” [2/3] 1813) In the immigration context, representations do create the material conditions that Latinas/os have to live with. Including narratives in the immigration debate can reframe the issue toward one of rights and equality which solves dehumanization. HUBER, 10 [Lindsay; Assistant Professor in Social and Cultural Analysis of Education (SCAE) in the College of Education at California State University – Long Beach; “Suenos Indocumentados: Using LatCrit to Explore the Testimonios of Undocumented and U.S. born Chicana College Students on Discourses of Racist Nativism in Education," Dissertation at UCLA available via ProQuest; UMI Number: 3405577] Eric Haas (2008) describes framing immigrants as "illegal" hides our shared humanity and allows anti-immigrant sentiment, policies and practices to become normalized ways of responding to undocumented immigration. Similarly, what I call racist nativist framing of undocumented Latina/o immigrants as "criminals" strips undocumented communities of their humanity, making illogical arguments for exclusion plausible and widely accepted. These negative portrayals of undocumented Latina/o immigrants have become so prevalent within immigration discourse, they have become "common sense" in how we understand immigration issues (Haas, 2007; Lakoff & Ferguson, 2006) This framing limits the agency of undocumented immigrants, their allies and advocates to counter these negative portrayals, by limiting the ways we fundamentally understand undocumented immigration as a crime. Positioned within this frame, institutions can easily deny undocumented immigrants the same rights and treatment that U.S. born and "legalized" communities have access to. For example, this framing allows undocumented college students, such as those in this study, to be denied access to state and federal financial aid programs, barred from having driver's licenses and denied the right to gain employment reflective of the training they have earned at the university. These oppressive policies are the result of racist nativist framing, which constructs particular rights (e.g. financial aid, driver's licenses, legal employment) as benefits that undocumented communities should not be given access to. The testimonios of the women in this study are a challenge to these racist nativist frames. Their stories and experiences show that they and their families are nothing like the misconstrued images and perceptions racist nativist frames create. In the previous chapter, a community cultural wealth framework acknowledged the strengths that existed within their families and communities that helped the women survive, thrive and resist subordination to persist through their educations. In fact, a community cultural wealth calls for a "reframing" of the racist nativist discourses which oppress these women (Yosso and Garcia, 2008). In the process of this reframing, we move closer toward the possibility of having more humane discussions of undocumented immigration that attempt to consider undocumented immigrants as human beings who deserve better lives. In order to move discussions in the immigration debate towards this direction, we must create a frame guided by human rights. 2AC Harms: A/t - #4 “Representations Don’t Shape Policy” [3/3] 1824) U.S. law attempts to group and categorize Mexican-Americans as a single identity, an offshoot of Whiteness that allows token access to the system but easy subjugation. MARTINEZ, 97 [George, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University; “The Legal Construction of Race: Mexican-Americans and Whiteness;" 2 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 321] Dominant-group-controlled institutions have determined the legal meaning of minority group identity. The law has recognized racial group identity when such identity was a basis for exclusion and subordination. The law, however, often has refused to recognize group identity when asserted by racially oppressed groups as a basis for affirming rights and resisting subordination. Thus, dominant-group-controlled institutions often have defined racial groups and have imposed those definitions on those groups as a way to maintain the status quo - i.e., racial subordination. Mashpee Tribe v. Town of Mashpee is instructive on this point. There, the Indian community at Mashpee on Cape Cod sued to recover tribal lands alienated from them over the last two hundred years in violation of the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1790. The Non-Intercourse Act prohibits the transfer of Indian tribal land to non-Indians without approval of the federal government. The Tribe argued that its land had been taken from it without the required federal consent. The defendant, Town of Mashpee, answered by denying that the plaintiffs Mashpee were a Tribe. Therefore they fell outside the protection of the NonIntercourse Act and had no standing to sue. In order to recover the land, the Mashpee were required to prove that they were a Tribe at the time of conveyance. Accepting the definition of "Tribe" as stated in earlier case law, the trial judge defined "Tribe" as a "body of Indians of the same or similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory.' The court held that the Mashpee were not a Tribe at the time the suit was filed. The court rejected their claim to land rights based on group identity. For the Mashpee, the court's standard was not the appropriate measure of group identity. Their identity as a group was demonstrated by their continued relationship to the land of the Mashpee and their awareness and preservation of cultural traditions. The Tribe, however, was incapable of legal self-definition. Instead, the court imposed a definition or standard of group identity in order to maintain the status quo and resist their claim of right to be free from subordination. The lesson of the Mashpee case seems clear: dominant-group-controlled institutions should not have exclusive power to define minority group identity. Historically dominated groups must struggle for the power of legal self-definition. Otherwise, dominant-group-controlled institutions may use the power over meaning and group identity to reinforce group oppression. We -have seen this phenomenon in the cases dealing with Mexican-Americans. As discussed, in Hernandez, the Texas court controlled the legal meaning of the identity of Mexican-Americans. There, Mexican-Americans sought to assert a group identity - the status of being a distinct group - in an effort to resist oppression -i.e., being excluded from grand and petit juries. The Texas court refused to recognize their group identity. Instead, the Texas court imposed a definition of "white" on Mexican-Americans so as to maintain the status quo - i.e., exclusion from juries. Subsequently, on review, the United States Supreme Court also imposed a group definition on Mexican-Americans. The Court held in Hernandez v. Texaso that "persons of Mexican descent" are a recognizable group for equal protection purposes in areas where they are subject to local discrimination.' Thus, in areas where Mexican-Americans are unable to prove the existence of discriminatory treatment, they lack sufficient definitional clarity as a class to warrant fourteenth amendment protection. Defining Mexican-Americans in terms of the existence of local discrimination hinders Mexican-Americans in asserting their rights. The Hernandez approach operates to impose artificially high standards on Mexican-American plaintiffs in that not every plaintiff can afford the expense of obtaining expert testimony to prove the required local prejudice. Thus, the Supreme Court's definition of Mexican-Americans in terms of local prejudice is another example of imposing a group definition on Mexican-Americans which has the potential effect of subordinating Mexican-Americans. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|