In “Undocumented Politics,” Abigail Andrews shows how the immigrant experience in America and its manifestations widely vary. In her book, we witnessed how immigrants from Partida and Retorno had disparate levels of political involvement, attachment to their sending town, relationships with police, and intragroup solidarity — these variables were governed by both sending and receiving conditions. Clearly, immigrants’ lives in receiving locales cannot be considered in a uniform fashion. This was emphasized by Professor Medford during her guest lecture.

Professor Medford first introduced the Classic Assimilation Model, widely utilized by the Chicago School. This model describes the “straight-line (linear) convergence” trajectory that immigrants take in their new environment. It predicts that over time, immigrants begin to internalize the norms, behaviors, beliefs, and values of their host society. Professor Medford emphasized how this process is quite extended — assimilation does not occur over several years or decades, but occurs over generations.

This model is problematic, however, as it makes major assumptions in regards to the immigrant experience. The ease of assimilation, and also the desire to assimilate, can vary between immigrant groups; according to the classic assimilation theory, there are no distinctions between groups along these lines. Take, for example, how the policing styles of Los Angeles versus North County San Diego influenced their respective  immigrants’ wishes to assimilate. For example, the conditional policing in Los Angeles rewarded “citizen-like” behavior and instilled in immigrants gratefulness and pride in America. In contrast, the arbitrary enforcement of laws in North County engendered a cynical attitude in its immigrant residents; they were skeptical of local governments, did not envision any paths to citizenship, and often did not desire to assimilate. In fact, many of them had plans to return to Mexico. This example is a clear foil to the straight-line convergence theory. 

We also recapped the segmented assimilation theory, shared by Professor Redford. This theory diversifies immigrant circumstances, including a downwards social assimilation trajectory in addition to upwards assimilation. Many immigrants, due to institutional barriers (ie: arbitrary police practices as described above, etc.), are unable to achieve assimilation, regardless of their efforts. It also acknowledges that not all immigrants seek assimilation, are pursuing the American Dream, or even want to be in America from the onset. Additionally, there are socioracial ceilings that certain immigrant demographics cannot overcome. For example, Asian-Americans, often due to their appearance and decided cultural divides from White culture, cannot assimilate into mainstream White society despite having American roots that stretch generations into the past — they are forever outsiders, according to the racial triangulation model. Also, immigrants’ status in America are tenuous as racialization can occur and brand them as outsiders — often spontaneously. We discussed how this occured in 2001 as Middle Eastern folk were labeled perpetual foreigners and threats after the September 11 attacks. Notably, but not surprisingly, this racialization is likely highly contingent on skin color — Love raised an interesting point, suggesting that European immigrants or White-passing individuals are not at risk, relative to those who are visibly of-color.

The questions I proposed during our discussion revolved around this concept of racialization. In Los Angeles, we saw how the arrival of new immigrants from Partida “racialized” older immigrants, and how an intragroup divide formed between the two demographics. Due to the city’s conditional policing, the older immigrants placed high importance on “acting White,” speaking quietly, obeying laws, and being industrious. Thus, the older immigrants deliberately distanced themselves from the new immigrants that acted “more Mexican,” were “lazy,” and could not speak English. First, I asked if it is fair to blame the new immigrants for their supposedly unattractive behavior. I empathized with those who resorted to drinking and had trouble in their new industrial/factory jobs. Secondly, I pondered if the older immigrants should be held accountable to look after the newer ones, and assist them in the assimilation process. If not, I am curious how local ally institutions can take action to allow for an easier transition to Los Angeles (ie: erecting community centers to grant male immigrants outlets for stress relief, as opposed to alcohol, etc.).