Since "Chain Migration" Is Racist, Let's Call It "Blood Migration"
January 26, 2018, 04:02 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

From the New York Times:

The Facts Behind the Weaponized Phrase ‘Chain Migration’

By LINDA QIU JAN. 26, 2018

As Congress considers a deal to provide relief for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, President Trump and his Republican allies are demanding an end to what they call “chain migration,” or family-based immigration.

The term itself has become a point of contention. Democrats and immigration advocates claim it is a pejorative phrase that demeans recent arrivals. Republicans argue it’s a useful shorthand for family sponsorship. …

“Chain migration” was originally a neutral, if not dry, phrase used by academics to describe the immigration process. …

In scholarship, the term appears to have emerged in the 1960s before tapering off in recent years, and even being eclipsed by the more recently established “family reunification.”

But popular use of the older phrase has skyrocketed. According to Google Trends search data, there were only modest spikes in user queries while immigration policies were debated in 2005 and 2015, before a spike in December 2017.

Why the sudden uptick?

The White House and allies have deployed the phrase to label existing policy they find undesirable. In talking points and white papers, they have stated a preference for a merit-based system while labeling the current sponsorship process as “chain migration.”

Democrats, meanwhile, prefer the term “family reunification” and say the practice is a reflection of American values.

The Trump Administration is emphasizing nuclear family reunification, while the Democrats want to preserve “clan reunification” or “tribal reunification.” They should call it “blood migration” for privilege blood relatives. It’s a “blood and no soil” immigration system.
Discussing DACA negotiations on Jan. 12, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, called the term “offensive.” Though he has actually used it himself as recently as 2010 — a time when it appeared to be less of a loaded phrase between the two political parties.
Let’s not mention Durbin’s hilariously stupid rationalization for calling “chain migration” “offensive.” Earlier
Durbin continued: “When it came to the issue of, quote, ‘chain migration,’ I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe they migrated to America in chains and when you talk about chain migration, it hurts them personally.

[Trump] said, ‘Oh, that’s a good line.’”

Back to the NYT:
Leo Chavez, a professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies media representations of immigration, said he had seldom heard ”chain migration” in public discourse until the debate over immigration intensified in the last few months.
It’s almost as if the public is learning more about the subject of immigration policy and is learning to speak of more sophisticated concepts such as “chain migration,” rather than just the usual lowbrow schmaltz about Muh Huddled Masses.
“It’s an attempt to sway public opinion,” Mr. Chavez said, adding that the once-scholarly term has taken on negative connotations as “if it’s a conspiracy, a plot, a threat to the changing demographics.”
Obviously, no Democrats ever speak among themselves about how immigration policy can used for their benefit to tilt future elections in their favor. They are not trying to change demographics. That’s a conspiracy theory! Instead, there’s just “the changing demographics” which don’t have anything to do with people like Durbin, Schumer, and Gutierrez.

Try to keep this straight, people: “climate change” requires massive policy changes. “Demographic change” is just a fact of nature like gravity. Nothing nobody can do nuthin’ about, except we’ve been talking and have a few ideas for how to speed it up to elect more Democrats.

It is not unlike “anchor baby,” “the browning of America” or even “Dreamers,” on the flip side, Mr. Chavez said.
“or even “Dreamers” … No, there’s nothing “weaponized” about Dreamers, it’s a traditional usage going back to the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the Dreamers not of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Non-Americans are who we are as Americans.

[Comment at Unz.com]