Immigration and racism?

· Immigration and the presence of "different" communities in Britain have attracted much interest within
the last few decades.

· New major developments in the world order - such as the political shifts from a bipolar world order to
what came to be known as a 'new world order', and the emergence of new socio -political/ cultural 'blocs' ,
along with (constructed and actual) threats of 'terrorism' have all contributed to emergence of discourses
of urgency in the demarcation of 'us' and 'them' among many modern European

·These processes translate into a tendency towards 'conservative' ideologies and identity convergence in
several European countries (Wodak & Van Dijk 2006, Wodak 1996,Van Dijk 1991).

·Within such grand changes in the world arena and on a more local level within Britain there have emerged
concerns/interests on issues of 'national identity', 'Britishness' and immigration in terms of what is to be
constr sted as in -group 'home' communities and it- group 'other' communities.

·In this context, the hegemonic majority power and the tendency to marginalise and 'cast out' the
constructed out-groups have intertwined with modern liberal and egalitarian discourses in modern
societies -which prevailed after the Second World War (Van Dijk 1991). This meant that “older"
discriminatory discourses on argumentative elaboration focusing on “culture" and religiously avoiding
"race” in their discursive construction of 'us' vs. 'them' (Billig 2006, Van Dijk 1991:25).

· However, abandoning the strict 'racialised' definition of racii, does not necessarily entail abolishment of
these Ascourses altogether.

·The people who practice this 'new racism' believe in the basic values of democratic egalitarianism, and
would emphatically deny that they are racist, they would speak or act in such a way that distances
themselves from the ethnic minority, engaging in discursive strategies that blame the victims for their
circumstances on their own social,economic and even cultural disagantage.

·In addition, metaphors have proved to be an

important discursive strategy in an analysis of

the representation of 'foreigners'.Several

studies found that metaphors of aliens, water,

natural disasters, pollution and impurity,

war/fighting,house/building,disease/infection,

animals,goods and the economy are salient

to the argumentative structure of discourses

of immigration and similar topics (Reisigl and

Wodak 2001, Woda k & van Dijk 2006,van

Dijk 1097,2004,Santa Ana 1999,Flowerdew &

Tran202,Sedlak 2006).

·The use of metaphors like "flood" and "tide" do not seem to be working towards negative presentation of
the refugees and in fact they seem to argue for more humanitarian help. It seems that the use of typical
metaphors for refugees or immigrants does not automatically create a negative representation of them,
and thefunction of metaphor use strictly depends on the social,cultural, and political and and cognitive
elements constituting the 'interpretive

·In Britain and in the UK,race and ethnic affairs have been and continue to be a major political issue
throughout the twentieth/twenty-first century.

·Analysis of the discourse of political elites on these issues may contribute:

-to our insight into the discursive reproduction of racism

to an understanding of the more general political context of these reproduction oracesses in other.
Governments, parliaments, political parties, the bureaucracies are involved in the discursive practices of
policy debates, decision making, and legislation about what they define as “pressing ethnic issues", such as

increasing illegal immigration

waves of refugees

housing

black crime,

Unemployment

-multicultural education

-poverty

(White)politicians

·are mainly (white) middle-class people who share ideas with the groups that support them

·get feedback from their constituencies

·are influenced by academic and other experts (e.g.through reports and other forms of institutional
discourse

·are influence by the media (and in turn influ ■ce the media)

The context

·Since World War II there has been a slow development toward more tolerant and even multicultural
attitudes, discourses, and practices in politics.

·Emergence of discourses on equality, human rights and the necessity of migrations has pushed 'racist'
discourse on the background.However, racism is still a fact of life in contemporary Europe and North
America, and politicians contribute to it.

·This does not mean that the majority of the mainstream political elites still advocate explicitly racist
positions, as is the case for some extremist right-wing parties in most European countries.

·On the contrary, most governments and most mainstream parties emphasize their distance toward explicit
racist attitudes and practices-if only because these are generally against the law.

· Parliamentarians also know, that their talk is "for the record,"and they act accordingly.

1) they do not speak merely to argue for or against a policy, a bill, or other political activities >they also
make official statements that reflect party positions, which are to be inserted into the records and which
may be quoted in the news media
· 2) they know they may be held politically and morally responsible FOR WHAT THEY SAY. This is especially
crucial in the domain of ethnic affairs since the controversiality and sensitive nature of most ethnic topics
require that the politicians be aware of what they can say, and what should not be said.

3) in other wwords, control and monitoring of self and others are crucial in political texts and talk about
ethnic and immigration affairs, and this will particularly affect the ways opinions are formu

Positive Self-Presentation:

Nationalist Rhetoric

·Parliaments and political discourse are the prime setting for nationalist rhetoric.

pride

self-glorification

positive comparisons with other countries

other forms of positive self-presentation

Especially in debates about immigration and ethnic

affairs in general, it is important to show that Our

party, Our country, Our people,are humane,

benersient, hospitable,tolerant, and modern.

·Such affirmations would be a natural self-defense tactic if there were attacks on or explicit doubts about
these civic virtues; however,we also find them when no such attacks or doubts have been voiced.

·They function as a defense against potential doubts or possible objections, they are used to block negative
inferences about negative things said about immigrants or minorities.

(EXCUS IO NON PETITA ACCUSATIO MANIFESTA?)

Cfr.excerpt from a speech about immigration of a Conservative MP in the British House of Commons:

I believe that we are a wonderfully fair country.We stick to the rules unlike some foreign Govemments.
(Great Britain,Sir John Stokes, May 15,1990,columns 842-S44)

·Self-praise for British immigration policies and practices is often formulated in the familiar terms of good
sportsnianship ("fair," "sticking to the rules").

Negative comparison with other countries ("unlike some foreign

Govemments") not only lightly implies that other countries do not

stick to the'es (of the so-called Immigration game),but also enhances

the alleg■pecial merits of Britain.

·Grand claims are made about tolerance:

(e.g."'we have a long history of tolerance")

·Hospitality and tolerance, are not merely ad hoc policies,but rather the inherent national virtues of a long
tradition.
Disclaimers and the Denial of Racism

Debates about Immigration,minorities, and civil rights are replete with exalted claims of
freedom,democracy,tolerance,hospitality,and other lofty ideals of a "long tradition"

·To understand the broader ideological,sociopolitical,and local argumentative function of such passages, we
need to examine the context in which they are uttered

such statements seemn to be responses to other, opposed that is, denials of implicit or explicit accusations
>

claims, you do not respect your/our values,

you are not tolerant,

You are not hospitable,and so on.

Sometime th counter-claims are really made, typically by the opposition

·The general structure of disclaimers in discour about ethnic affairs usually is

We do/are positive, but They do/are negativ (e.g. We are very tolerant, but They abuse our tolerance).

· It may also start with a denial of a negative property of the own groupfollowed by a neg property
attributed to others, or followed by negative decision (e.g. We have nothing agair immyants, but we can't
let evervhodi-

·The denial of racism also has the overall format of a positive property associated with Us,followed by a
clause, starting with but and then saying or implying something negative about the Others.

·The positive self-description here, however, is indirect. It does not say that we are tolerant or democratic,
but only that "they have rights," paternalistically implying that we have given them these rights.

·At the same time,this statement presupposes that They are not fulfilling their duties, although We,the
State,guarantee their rights.

·The rhetoric sounds like this:

We have done our best, we have done everything for you we could, but now it is your turn. And politically
more relevant, it also implies: If our minority policy has failed, it is your fault because you did not fulfill your
duties and you have taken us seriously.

·Often political texts express humanitarian Ideals: care and sympathy

for the oppressed, as they are legally required according to international

agreements, such as the Geneva refugee treaty.Then follows a "but" which is

generally predictable, mentioning "measures" that impair the chances of

refugees or other immigrants.

The use of "of course" (instead of, say, "unfortunately") implies that such a realistic policy is onlynatural:
We are forced to be less generous because of special circumstances.

The usual argument involved might simply and stralghtforwardly run like this: "There are too many of them
and therefore we can't handle (house, employ, etc.)them."

Reasonable,rational,necessary
·That we are "reasonable and rational" is of course a standard ideological proposition of Eurocentrism.

·Preference for the game metaphor, in which We play by the rules, and we award the "prize" to the winner.

·At the same time, there is the well-known opposition between "reasonable" and
"necessary," as we -ball see the ubiquitous Reasonable,rational,necessary

·That we are "reasonable and rational" is of course a standard ideological proposition of Eurocentrism.

·Preference for the game metaphor, in which We play by the rules, and we award the "prize" to the winner.

·At the same time, there is the well-known opposition between "reasonable" and
"necessary," as we also shall see the ubiquitous

·Necessity, interpreted here as political and social obligation, entails limited responsibility: We have to
restrict immigration.

Citizenship is the prize, which not only presupposes the metaphorical domain of games, fairness,and let-
the-best-win,but also that British citizenship is not a right, and that such citizenship is something very
special,which of course is a standard component of nationalist

·Positive self-presentation,face-keeping, keeping up appearances, and related strategies of impression

formation in ethnic affairs discourse not only emphasize our positive properties but also, and even more
emphatically,deny conceal,play down, excuse, or otherwise mitigate our negative ones, according to the
standarrl formula: "We are r racist,but."

Negative Other-Presentation

·The derogation of other ethnic or racial groups forms the core of racist attitudes, Ideologies, and
practices.However,there Is a significant difference between the explicit verbal defamation in much elite
discourse of the past, and more subtle or indirect ways.

We generally should not expect explicit racial slurs in Western parliaments -but this does not mean that
ethnlc attitudes have fundamentally changed.

Instead of categorizing the members of another group as less inteligent, as lazy, or as criminal, the white
elites may represented them as oversensitive,underachieving, or too demanding.

Blatant derogatory labels are being replaced by seemingly innocent concepts.

Firm, but Fair

· One other way to play on immigration is to combine quasl-negative and positive self-descriptions and
invoke the routine rhetorical pair firm,but fair (or tough,but fair).

This phrase is mostly used to legitimate immigration restrictions or other limitations of (or refusals to
extend) the rights of refugees, immigrants,or resident minoritles. Sell-description as being "firm" or "tough"
or admissions that one has been "too soft" mayhardlyseem positive, but the combination with the positive
qualification "fair" does make the pair positive.
Firmness in that case is like that of the stern father, or the wise doctor, whose firmness only benefits his
children or clients. The addition of "fair" also suggests that there is no question of being too firm:

Falrness prevails in all decisions.

This paleralistic strategy is apparent In many parliamentary debates

·It is fair to establish visa controls as long as

there is mutual agreement about them

between the countries involved. They are the

best way to control immigration fairly, so that

those who properly qualify to come here or to

leave this country to visit other countries can

do so. Such controls make sure that people

have the right qualifications for travel.

(Great Pritain, Mr. Hanley, May 15, 1990,c.849)

For Their Own Good

This paternalistic view of Immigration and race relations is evident in arguments that suggest that the
speaker is doing all these firm things "for their own good."

This Apparent Empathy or Apparent Altruism move is again a functional part of the overall strategy of
positive self-presentation:We are doing something good for Them.

A standard argument,heard in everyday conversations as well as in racist

propaganda about immigrants, is that they should go back to thelr own

(poor) country, and help to build it up. That is, limiting immigration

would not be better for us, but for them, because that would be good for

their country.

Vox Populi

Sympathy with the oppressed is a noble sentiment. There are, however, even more forceful argumentative
moves to persuade both liberal white elites and minorities, namely,the threat of intolerance,
discrimination, and racism.
Who would be in favor of racism; who would condone popular resentment?

·In order to persuasively argue against immigration one only needs to conjure up the specter of racist
reactions among the white population at large.

· Obviously, this is a specific elite strategy, because it exclusively attributes potential racism to the white
lower class, and in particular to those in the inner cities.

The argint is:Stop immlgration because othewwill get even morer

The Numbers Game

·Another well-known move in the negative presentation of immigration is the numbers game, which is also
familiar in the press. This rhetorical use of quasi-objective figures, convincingly suggesting how many "come
in" every day, week, month, or year, is one of the most compelling scare tactics in the formation of public
opinion.

Figures need not be lied about or exaggerated. It is the way they are presented or extrapolated that makes
them impressive. For instance, they are always given in absolute numbers, so that thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of refugees or immigrants arriving each year appear to be quite impressive. In
percentages of the total population, even aminorities and immigrants counted together amot :o only a
small percentage, at least in Europe.

We see that this numbers rhetoric operates in several ways.

1) "thousands" may be mentioned, without saying whether this is per week,month,or year,

2) The use of absolute numbers, instead of percentages, is more impressive in this case

·3)"Flows" are presented as being out of control;

· 4) Famlly reunification and of course the birthrale are used as arguments to suggest that it is not
merelylarge numbers, but also the explosion of a demographic time bomb that must be feared.

" birthrates in immigrant communities generally approach the average of the native population >
references to high birthrates are a familiar disparaging qualification of "backward" peoples: modern people
have birth controll.