The intersection of labor, politics, and race has always been messy. These forces are often driven by vehicles of different interests, and in America’s racial and labor history, have often collided unnecessarily. It is a classic battle of enterprise, political ideology and culture, and observing how these branches of civilization check and balance each other out can be quite the fascinating spectacle.
Enter Alabama. The state recently passed a bill in June 2011 giving permission to traffic officers to detain individuals whom they have “reasonable” belief to be illegal immigrants. Here is their resolution, as stated in the original draft of the bill AL HB 56
Section 2. The State of Alabama finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. Because the costs incurred by school districts for the public elementary and secondary education of children who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States can adversely affect the availability of public education resources to students who are United States citizens or are aliens lawfully present in the United States, the State of Alabama determines that there is a compelling need for the State Board of Education to accurately measure and assess the population of students who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States, in order to forecast and plan for any impact that the presence such population may have on publicly funded education in this state. The State of Alabama further finds that certain practices currently allowed in this state impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Alabama. Therefore, the people of the State of Alabama declare that it HB56 is a compelling public interest to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigrants
Alabama would advertise the new policy as a “jobs” bill, promising that this policy would help create new jobs within the state that are the right of Alabama and American citizens. Farmers and other employers in Alabama vehemently opposed the bill. The new bill would have a primary impact on the employers, who were dependent upon immigrant labor to a large extent (which will be illustrated later). How would this new bill ensure that labor demands would be met? Also, how could the bill ensure that it would not prompt workers were legal workers, unwilling to be harassed by city officials, landlords, and policemen? Alabama officials attempted to quell the concerns of employers by pointing out that there were more than enough Americans who would be willing and available to mitigate the potential loss in labor.
A similar position was embraced by state officials in America’s antebellum years. While during this period white immigrant labor was welcomed by most industrialists because many of them brought industrial skill with them, state officials were more concerned with their American-bred black counterparts. Many southern states were alarmed with the increase in the free-black population as well as the increasingly mobile enslaved population. The prevalence of urbanization, industrialization, and slave-hiring made bondspersons more likely to roam around some southern American cities. As a result, many states embraced a policies that placed stronger restrictions on the mobility of enslaved and free blacks. Some states, like Virginia and Maryland, attempt to ban free blacks from their respective states altogether. Some cities such as New Orleans, forced registration of free blacks into the state, arrests and expulsed out-of-state or “alien” blacks from the city, many of whom were mainstays in the state as workers, helping the city and state with an intense labor shortage going on in the 1830s and 40s.
The profundity in this recurring history is the astonishingly predictable outcomes. The “under-class” are always a particular interest for those in politics and enterprise. As with our Antebellum history, the prospect of an underclass developing capital have always threatened right-wing politics, for they perceive immigrants' influence on the economy as a weakness in the country, something that reduces nationalism, and an overall undermining of the political structure. Similarly for free blacks in the American south, their independence had been perceived as factors that threatened the country’s safety, and it contradicted and undermined the rigid ideologies of race at its time. For our Alabama (and Arizona) immigrants, their independence and prevalence in the American economic fabric presents a threat to the American social structure and complicates the "moving-target-ideologies" of capitalism, nativity and “Americanity.” Ironically, what these officials neglected in both situations is that immigrants and free blacks have both played a profound role in American product production, and without their efforts, negative consequences are certain to come.
Employers have needed these men and women. They come with a work ethic and level of optimism that Americans lack now and have historically lacked. Their decision to see their glass as “half-full” and willingness to work jobs that most Americans find unfit is what has increased the prevalence of immigrants in the economy, as free blacks had been to southern industrial and agricultural economies.
Our outcomes? Well, in the case of those in Virginia and New Orleans, their decision to limit the use of free blacks in their economy largely attributed to the under-performance of most southern iron and industrial productions, attributing to a lacking railroad system and economic inconsistency featured by several panics and depressions. New Orleans, one of the major American cities by the 1840s, would lose out on the opportunity to become one of the most thriving American cities in part because of their restrictions of the free black population, prompting many to move West or North. As a result, the railroads that were intended to stretch along the Appalachians would be delayed by decades. However, other states would continue to deal with issues pertaining to white competition with “black labor.”
Alabama, in the midst of a global and national economy regression, is expected to lose $40 million as an effect of the new bill, which was federally permitted Sept. 28. These effects do not take into consideration losses in housing and the purchasing power of immigrants have through consumerism. It begs the question whether Alabama state legislators were fully aware of the impact their decision would have on the state.
The decision is up to you. Some will suggest that it is the correct to take jobs from foreigners in that it makes American citizens responsible for the upkeep of their economy as well. In addition, perhaps a forced deportation of illegal immigrants would lead to a substantial increase in American employment. However, before we even go to that conversation, we must consider whether the creation of jobs had really been the agenda of the Alabama officials in the first place, despite what the resolution of the bill states. Our history has shown us that our cultural and political ideologies can trump the economic needs of a nation, even while they are in the midst of intense economic hardship. The stigmas we place on the underclass is actually what defeats us the most. Fact is, while some may consider deeming a job to be “fit for Mexicans” a derogative statement, any groups’ willingness to take opportunities others spit at gives them the competitive edge, not those in the “in-crowd.” If recurring history tells us anything this time, it tells us that racism is a double-edged sword. It hurts to lose the game that you created.
Recurring History was created by Derrick Reed (Morehouse '12) to emphasize the ironies of our past. While it is reasonable to hope that humanity would learn from paralleled events from our past, we are almost helpless in ensuring such events do not happen again. Nothing is new under the sun, and almost every contemporary phenomenon has a historical precedent. While Recurring History does not attempt to influence the opinion of its readers, it urges us to continue to make connections to the present and future in order to make our history relevant.
