Bare Life Doty Analysis

Throughout this week’s reading, I found that there was a heavy emphasis on the correlation between bare life for migrants and harsh realities of border control, which reflects our earlier discussions about territoriality and desirability. In the article, Bare Life, Doty argues that many unauthorized migrants are regarded as bare life individuals “whose deaths are deemed of little consequence” (Doty 599). This concept of bare life is documented in the journey of migrants like Mario Alberto Diaz and Prudencia Martin Gomez, who died from extreme heat exposure while attempting to enter the United States. By utilizing these personal accounts and vivid examples of bodies left to riot under the desert sun, she effectively connects the reader to the

life of undocumented migrants and demonstrates how their life can “be taken without apology” (Doty 602). I believe this idea of discounting the life of unauthorized migrants is a central consequence of the United State’s prevention through deterrence policy. Similar to our discussions in class, prevention through deterrence and the goal of stopping people from coming into the United States led to inhospitable routes through the border, in which harsh conditions like the desert and heat emerged as some of the most deadly weapons in the fight against unauthorized migrants. I believe that border control authorities recognize that by “channel[ing] migrants to locations where the days are blazing hot and nights freezing cold”, they can increase the difficulty in the barriers to entry and maximize the risk of apprehension, which will discourage the total number of migrants (Doty 602). I found it very perplexing that death became a potential weapon to slow the flow of unauthorized migrants. While deaths might instill fear into potential migrants, they also represent an inhumane and cruel method in which the government intentionally put millions of lives at risk. Furthermore, I question the overall effectiveness of such methods because of their impact on border communities and the subsequent costs associated with identifying bodies and providing burials.
Another aspect of Doty’s definition of bare life really stood out to me because of its connection to our class and the complex modern day policy implications.

I believe the more significant description of bare life migrants is that they are “both wanted and unwanted - wanted for their labor but unwanted as human beings” (Doty 600). Much like the early Irish and Chinese immigrants, undocumented Hispanic migrants are valued and praised for their effectiveness and diligence as workers, especially in low wage jobs that are often deemed undesirable by white workers like agriculture and domestic housework. I believe this parallel in desirability reflects one of the most important themes in our course because of its historical significance and influences on legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was passed after the competition of Transcontinental Railroad and the subsequent decrease in demand for Chinese workers. However, I would like to challenge the extent to which unauthorized migrants are “wanted” for their labor. While they may be valued for their contribution in areas like “agricultural fields and the meat-packing factories”, they are also seen as potential competitors for domestic jobs (Doty 606). Similar to Samuel Gompers during the National Quota Act of 1924, many modern politicians like Donald Trump have embraced the strong rhetoric associating native job loss with the influx of immigrants, in particular undocumented Hispanics. Therefore, the concept of

desirability not only has a lasting legacy on the history of immigration in the United States, but also spurs significant modern policy implications like the campaign to build a wall along the southern border.
After reading Rachel Ida Buff’s article, The Deportation Terror, I gained a newfound understanding of the long-lasting implications of historical precedents like Chae Chan Ping v.

U.S. in 1889, in which the Supreme Court concluded that plenary powers superseded the individual rights of immigrants. Plenary powers, which gives the legislative and executive branches the sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration, was used to justify the legality of the Chinese Exclusion Act at the time. However, I now recognize how it can also be applied to Japanese internment and the Patriot Act of 2001, in which the Congress used its plenary power along with the pretext of national security to separate and monitor groups of individuals. Like the Japanese during World War II, all of the post 9/11 deportees were never found conspiring to commit any acts of terror. I believe this represents a paradox in which immigration legislation passed for the purpose of national security often target groups who do not possess a threat to the safety of the country, but rather used a political tool and leads to devastating consequences for many innocent individuals like refugees and asylum seekers. As noted by Oxford in her article Acts of Resistance in Asylum Seekers’ Persecution Narratives, lawmakers have used the public fear of terrorism to weaken immigration policies for asylum seekers. However, I would like to challenge Buff and Oxford in that U.S. immigration and asylum policies also depend on

the laws and regulations of the sending nation. Even if U.S. was receptive to asylum seekers and refugees, their home countries often prevent them from leaving, as noted in Daniels’s chapter about Jews in the Soviet Union. Therefore, I think the argument should not be solely about the U.S. doing little, but instead about the circumstances and international relationships that restrict how much the U.S. can do.
Discussion Questions: What are the boarder human rights implications of prevention through deterrence and how does it affect the U.S’s ethos as a nation of immigrations? On page of 210 of Daniels’s book, he asserts that the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba was a factor in Al Gore’s crucial loss of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. To what extent does public outlook on immigration affect policy and what examples have we seen throughout history? How immigration legislation evolved over the past 200 years and what are the effects for different groups?