constructing rhetorical borders: peons, illegal aliens

Critical Studies in Media CommunicationVol. 20, No. 4, December 2003, pp. 362–387

Constructing Rhetorical Borders:Peons, Illegal Aliens, and Competing

Narratives of Immigration

Lisa A. Flores

� – Recent work in immigration suggests interconnections among race, nation, and immi-gration. This essay examines these relations, noting the rhetorical dynamics through whichsymbolic borders emerge and shift, in part through national debates over immigrants. Turningcritical attention to mediated representations of Mexican immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s,I argue that Mexican immigrant bodies provided rhetorical space for a national discussion ofrace and nation. I highlight, in particular, a deportation drive and repatriation campaign thatresulted in the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and Mexican Americans.

How a nation treats the immigrant speaksvolumes about the nation.

(Chang & Aoki, 1998, p. 310)

Questions of national identityemerge and disappear, seemingly

in concert with times of crisis and sta-bility. Across U.S. history, nationalidentity has been wrought with ambiv-alence, as political leaders, citizens,

and visitors participate in conversa-tions about who we are and who weshould be. Such debate is heightenedat times, sparked perhaps by economicshifts or political turmoil. Talk of war,for instance, may promote heightenedpatriotism, while moments of affluenceand productivity can stimulate gen-erosity. Whether the exchanges centeron fears, such as those generated bythreats of terrorism, or on growth, evi-denced by open door policies, theyoften turn on and impact issues ofimmigration.A cursory glance at U.S. history

suggests that as a “people,” we havelong struggled with the role of immi-gration in the nation’s identity andsecurity. Tensions are evident, such asin the series of restrictive acts thatoccurred at the turn of the 20th cen-tury as well as in contemporary cau-tions about immigration and nationalsecurity. Witness common topics andconcerns raised today:

Lisa A. Flores is Associate Professor in the De-partment of Communication and the Ethnic Stud-ies Program at the University of Utah. The authorwould like to thank the Karl R. Wallace Mem-orial Award and the University of Utah Univer-sity Research Committee, which provided fundingfor this project, and the University of Utah Fac-ulty Fellow Program, which provided researchtime. Thanks are also given to Celeste M. Condit,Bonnie J. Dow, and the anonymous reviewers fortheir valuable feedback. Previous versions of thisessay were presented at the Tanner HumanitiesCenter Works-in-Progress Series, University ofUtah, October 2001 and at the annual meeting ofthe National Communication Association, Novem-ber 2001.

Copyright 2003, National Communication AssociationDOI: 10.1080/0739318032000142025

363

CSMC FLORES

• A Los Angeles Times article, profilingmayoral candidates, cites one cam-paign promise: the deportation of“illegal alien criminals,” regardlessof the nature of the crime (Fox &McGreevy, 2002, p. 3).

• A concerned citizen protests undoc-umented immigration, arguing“anyone who is in this country il-legally should be deported” (Sink,2003, p. 17).

• Another letter writer argues for anational “compelling interest” in de-portation of “unlawful entrants”(Saxon, 2003, p. 16A).

These typical fragments of a largerconversation point to a uniformity inthe public vocabulary surrounding im-migration and criminality. Whetherinvoked directly or indirectly, thefigure of the “illegal alien” is haunt-ingly consistent, as is the quick turn todeportation.Those who follow mediated

rhetorics of immigration and nationprobably find nothing surprising ornew in these reports. Instead, theyconfirm a pattern identified by othersin which immigrant and criminalityare so closely connected rhetoricallythat the slippage from immigrant tocriminal seems almost natural (Ono &Sloop, 2002; Santa Ana, 1999). Theirwork details the ways in which con-structions of national borders, es-pecially symbolic ones, have emergedon and through the bodies of raciallymarked immigrants (Palumbo-Liu,1999). Such issues merit attentionfrom communication scholars, es-pecially those interested in media, forsocial debate over borders, boundariesand citizens often occurs in mediateddomains (Ono & Sloop, 2002). Con-temporary images of immigrants, suchas that of the illegal alien, do notemerge in a vacuum. Instead, they are

part of our nation’s history of immi-gration, race, and nation; they bringwith them varied meanings reflectingtheir origins and uses. Our under-standing of them in the present re-quires our knowledge of theirrepresentational histories.In this essay, I turn critical attention

to the past and explore the complexi-ties of Mexican immigration. In par-ticular, I investigate mediateddiscussions of Mexican immigrants asthey intersect with a deportation driveand repatriation campaign that re-sulted in a mass exodus of Mexican/Americans.1 This deportation drive,concentrated in Los Angeles in 1931,sparked a nationwide repatriationcampaign that extended throughoutthe decade and occurred across thesouthwest as well as in Indiana, Illi-nois, Michigan, and Minnesota. De-portation of immigrants had certainlyoccurred before this time (King, 2000);however, the concentrated efforts inboth the drive and the campaign sig-naled a new moment in U.S. immi-gration history. As Guerin-Gonzales(1996) notes, “The 1930s marked thefirst time in the history of internationalmigration between the U.S. and othercountries that the federal governmentsponsored and supported the mass ex-pulsion of immigrants” (p. 77). In anunprecedented act, concerted effortswere made to target and export a par-ticular population—Mexican immi-grants. Indeed, although Mexicanscomprised only one percent of the im-migrant population during the 1930s,they constituted half of those formallydeported and 80 percent of voluntarydepartures (Ngai, 1999). The concen-trated attention directed toward thisparticular group of immigrants sug-gests that prevailing arguments at thetime, which emphasized racially-indis-criminate deportation motivated by

364

CONSTRUCTING RHETORICAL BORDERS DECEMBER 2003

economic strife and job scarcity,served to conceal underlying racialmotivations.2

Significant interdisciplinary researchon immigration and anti-immigrantsentiment in the U.S. has been con-ducted, but relatively little attentionhas been given to the 1930s deporta-tions and repatriations of Mexican/Americans (Balderrama & Rodrıguez,1995; Guerin-Gonzales, 1996; Hoff-man, 1974). The research which doesexist often highlights the economic fac-tors that impelled deportation (Copp,1963). While such arguments are notincorrect, neither do they fully explainthe rhetorical dimensions. This ab-sence is particularly meaningful givenconsistency in arguments that thedrive was never designed to result innumerous deportations but was in-stead crafted to create a media-pro-duced fear that would be the impetusfor “voluntary” repatriation (Balder-rama & Rodrıguez, 1995). Hoffman(1973) identifies the motivation andstrategies: “This apparent activity[publicity over deportations] will havetendency to scare many thousand aliendeportables out of this district which isthe desired result” (Visel as cited inHoffman, 1973, p. 208). Herein liesthe rhetorical dynamic; actual policeor state force had at best a limited rolein the deportation drive, resulting in amere 110 formal deportations (Hoff-man, 1973). Instead, it was mediatedattention to deportation that served tomobilize mass numbers of Mexican/Americans, both during the months ofintensive effort and ultimatelythroughout the decade, across the stateof California and even the nation.3

Press accounts were common acrossmany Los Angeles newspapers, includ-ing local Spanish-language newspa-pers, that encouraged repatriation,providing information on transporta-

tion and on the possibilities of assist-ance from the Mexican government.For instance, during the months of thedeportation drive, the Los Angeles-based newspaper La Opinion includedregular coverage of repatriation andoften published stories encouragingMexicans to repatriate so as to helptheir native country (“700 repatri-ados,” 1931; “Saldra,” 1931). This dy-namic points to the intersection ofstate and rhetorical forces that, asGramsci (1971/1980) argues, mustwork together to create the ideologicalclimate in which governments canachieved their desired ends. Seen inthis light, the deportation drive was anunqualified success, for those behind itin Los Angeles achieved their goal of“encouraging” Mexican/Americans toleave the country. Considerable de-bate continues over the number ofrepatriates; some maintain that totalsapproximated 500,000 (Guerin-Gon-zales, 1996; Hoffman, 1974).4

I revisit this moment in U.S. immi-gration history and argue that the de-portation drive and the repatriationcampaign of the 1930s served to createrhetorically a border between Mexicoand the U.S., between “Americans”and Mexican/Americans. In so doing,I extend the work of Ono and Sloop(2002), providing further explorationof the rhetorical processes throughwhich nations and borders are con-structed. My argument emerges out ofanalysis of approximately 200 textsfrom the national and regional press. Ibegin by outlining the centrality ofmedia in rhetorical constructions ofimmigration and nation, arguing for anarrative analysis of mediated debates.I then turn to those debates, delineat-ing prevailing narratives and their re-spective constructions of Mexicanimmigrants. I conclude with reflectionson the mediated and rhetorical dy-

365

CSMC FLORES

namics of immigration, nation, andrace.

Media, Rhetoric, andNarrative in Immigration

Discourse

The study of the rhetoric of immi-gration directs attention to the inter-stices between the discourse and thepractice of immigration, belying easyseparation of the two. For instance,Ono and Sloop (2002) argue that“contemporary mainstream me-dia … provide a specific locale, aspace, where social issues collide,where political issues are struggledover and subject positions … are con-stituted” (p. 2). Hasian and Delgado(1998) concur, noting the materialityof mediated struggles over meanings ofimmigrants. This work demonstratesthat publics come to understand immi-gration and to conceive of immigrantsvia participation in mediated discus-sions. Ono and Sloop (2002) make thispowerful point: “[immigration]rhetoric shifts borders, changing whatthey mean publicly, influencing publicpolicy, altering the ways borders affectpeople, and circumscribing politicalresponses” (p. 5, emphasis in original).The symbolic and political terrains

of immigration are never neatly dis-tinct, which makes attention to themediated complexities of immigrantscrucial (Lowe, 1996; Osajima, 1988).In public discourse, critics can uncoverrhetorical dynamics that, as Shah(1999) explains, “help establish andmaintain geopolitical and culturalboundaries of the nation and the racialcriteria by which people are includedin and excluded from it” (p. 252). Andwhile all discourse potentially partici-pates, regional and mainstream mediahave consistently been influential in

the public shaping of immigrants andimmigration (Hofstetter & Loveman,1982; Miller, 1994). Critical mediastudies of public discourse surroundingcontested immigration practices revealthe centrality of rhetorical tropes(Mehan, 1997). For instance, SantaAna (1999) uncovers the frequency ofanimal metaphors in immigration dis-course and argues that such depictionsenable publics to participate in anti-immigrant practices.Mediated representations, then, can

be powerful rhetorical forces. Regard-less of whether a particular accountoffers a positive, negative, or neutralinterpretation of immigration, it oftenrests, at least in a latent sense, onunderlying racial assumptions (Ono &Sloop, 2002). It may be that “positive”representations reinscribe racial essen-tialisms that support a citizen/for-eigner dynamic (Shah, 1999). Thesedeeply embedded logics of race pro-vide what Ferguson (1998) identifies asdiscursive reserves, or tropes, images,and figurations that are easily tapped.That such discursive reserves of raceemerge is not surprising. Across U.S.history, notions of race and immi-gration have long been interconnectedas immigrant access to citizenship, atleast from 1790 to 1952, required thatimmigrants be legally recognized aswhite (Lopez, 1996).5 Immigrationlaws were designed such that immi-grant populations were characterizedbased on their racial fitness for mem-bership in the national body (King,2000).While explicit causal relations be-

tween the mediated demonization ofimmigrants and restrictive immi-gration policies are difficult to sustain,casual dismissal of such connectionsappears short-sighted (Mondello,1967). Streitmatter (1999) maintains,for instance, that Nativist publications

366


of the late 19th century fueled thestream of restrictive legislation that ap-peared in the early years of the 20thcentury. Similarly, Shah (1999)identifies correlations between medi-ated representations of the “Hinduconspiracy” and restrictions on AsianIndian petitions for U.S. citizenship.Given such arguments, it is not sur-

prising that critical media studies ofimmigration draw attention to embed-ded discourses of race and nation.Most significantly, Ono and Sloop(2002) detail mediated accounts of im-migrants and immigration in publicdiscourse surrounding California’sProposition 187. In so doing, theymaintain that such representationshave profound implications for publicconceptions of race and nation. Argu-ing similarly, Palumbo-Liu (1999)traces (re)articulations of Mexicansand Asians, noting how the differentialracializations of early 20th century dis-courses continue to emerge in laterhistorical periods and to shape publicresponses to Mexican and Asian immi-grants.To a degree, scholars researching

the mediated representations of immi-grants offer insight into larger ques-tions of ideological force, directingattention to Gramscian notions of con-sent. Clearly immigration laws andmediated discussions are distinct; yetGramsci (1971/1980) identifies theirinterdependence, arguing that rhetori-cal arguments, circulating in society,serve as a type of back-up to the moreexplicit force of police and state insti-tutions. Moreover, he maintains thatpolice and state force could notachieve governmental ideals withoutrhetorical support. Distinguishing be-tween civil society, comprised of intel-lectual leaders, and the state, Gramsci(1971/1980) argues that “thesupremacy of a social group manifests

itself … as ‘domination’ and as ‘intel-lectual and moral leadership’ ” (p. 57,emphasis added). Lacking the supportof intellectual leaders, overt force re-mains limited in its potential. Mumby(1997) clarifies this position:“Hegemony resides primarily in therealm of civil society … . [It] involvesthe production of a worldview, inclus-ive of a philosophical and moral out-look, that is actively supported andarticulated by subordinate and alliedgroups” (p. 348). This account of hege-mony draws attention to the rhetoricaldynamics, suggesting that the com-bined strategy under investigation inthis essay, of a state-supported deport-ation drive and a publicly mediatedcampaign, worked together. Variouscitizen groups, social organizations,and political leaders joined as mem-bers of that civil society in the con-struction of a worldview that lentmoral support to the efforts of policeand immigration officers. In this analy-sis, I focus on the role of narrative inthat process.Rhetorical studies of narrative

abound, generating considerable de-bate (Fisher, 1985; Lucaites & Condit,1985; Rowland, 1989; Warnick, 1987),but common among narrative studiesis an interest in story-telling as a keyrhetorical form (Bennett & Edelman,1985; Fisher, 1984; McGee & Nelson,1985; White, 1987).Particularly compelling in studies of

narrative are accounts of its seductive-ness. The narrative, whether itemerges as a discrete whole or is com-prised of cultural fragments, invitesparticipation in its vision of the socialworld (Jasinski, 1993). Often relyingupon archetypal notions, narrativesprovide explanations for past events asthey create visions, desirable or not, ofpossible futures (Lucaites & Condit,1985). Enticed by their desire to live in

367

CSMC FLORES

a given rendition of the world, audi-ences seek to make real the social vi-sion contained in narrative (Kirkwood,1992). Lucaites and Condit (1990)maintain that culturally establishednarratives and their respective charac-terizations form a “public vocabulary”or social group ideology. This publicvocabulary manages the taken-for-granteds underlying personal andcommunal life. Public vocabularies,which include social narratives andmyths, tap into what Fisher (1989)calls “narrative fidelity” as they circu-late foundational ideas about a culture,its values, structures, and telos. Oftencaptured in narratives, public vocabu-laries gain social credibility; they offerexplanations for what a society is andhow it functions (Condit, 1987). Seenin this light, cultural narratives serve tooutline ideological positions and togarner assent for those public stances.The public sphere generally main-

tains multiple and often competingcultural narratives. Central to theirideological functions are those charac-terizations at play within them. Lu-caites and Condit (1990) explain that,“Characterizations are the labels at-tached to agents, acts, scenes, agencies,or purposes in the public vocabulary”(p. 7). A narrative obtains social forcein part through the appeal and recog-nizability of its characterizations (Con-dit, 1987; Lewis, 1987). Thesecharacterizations, Hasian (1997) ar-gues, become influential markers, in-stantiations of cultural ideals and woes.Carlson (1991) maintains that charac-ter-types “may alter an audience’s per-ception of a series of events” (p. 39).Further, as Parry-Giles (1996) notes, apublic’s willingness to embrace aleader and his or her agenda is a func-tion of the characterization of thatleader. Goldzwig and Sullivan (2000)argue similarly, for as they note amidst

competing cultural narratives, thosecharacter-types who speak from posi-tions of privilege can normalize theirpositions more easily than thosemarked as other.Such studies convincingly point to

the centrality of characterization incompeting social narratives. If, as Iargue here, the deportation driveaimed at Mexican immigrants was notsimply a momentary solution to aneconomic crisis, but was instead en-meshed in competing public narrativesabout the place of Mexican immi-grants in the U.S., then particular at-tention to mediated characterizationsof Mexican and American will be cru-cial. As I argue below, when variouspopulations can be caricatured asharmless foreigners who return home,they receive different treatment fromthe others who desire more permanentvisits.

Contested Borders:Immigrant Tales of

(Un)Desirability and Access

Mediated narratives of immigrantsand their place in the nation have along and storied history, much ofwhich entails negotiations of desirabil-ity. To assess the dynamics of rhetori-cal shifts in national borders, Ichronicle two dominant narratives—the narrative of need and the narrativeof the Mexican problem—surroundingMexican immigrants in the 1920s and1930s. As these narratives emerge,they intersect with existingprefigurations of immigration, for thenation had been debating the politicsof the border for some time. Indeed,the controversy surrounding immi-gration had been particularly promi-nent and heated during the preceding50 years. While the target populations

368


in question during that period differed,those narratives and their respectivecharacterizations re-emerge in latertalk of Mexican immigration. Giventhis rhetorical overlap, I trace brieflythe prior tales of immigration and na-tion.

Immigrant Dangers and National Woes

In the mid to late 1800s, citizens ofthe U.S., particularly along the westcoast, witnessed what they perceivedas a dramatic rise in the Chinesepopulation. A response to a desire fora cheap labor pool, Chinese workersentered the country in large numbers(Meyler, 2001). However, as the publicwas invited to accept the possibilitythat the Chinese workers were threat-ening the nation’s resources, initialwelcomes quickly turned to what Hing(1993) identifies as a “ubiquitous air ofhostility” (p. 20). Chinese workers, of-ten identified as “coolies,” wereconfigured in much public discourse,especially along the west coast, aseconomic competitors (Cole, 1978;Gardner, 1999, Gyory, 1998).Anti-Chinese sentiment resulted in

the nation’s first act banning an immi-grant population on the basis of raceand national origin, the 1882 ChineseExclusion Act, that initially barred im-migration of laborers and then of allChinese (Cole & Chin, 1999; Salyer,1995). Such restrictions were not lim-ited to Chinese, but ultimately in-cluded others (Chuman, 1981; Hing,1993).Fears of floods of immigrant hordes

extended to southern and eastern Eu-ropean immigrants, who quickly be-came, in the public imagination, bothunassimilable and undesirable(Higham, 1955/1994). While manyvariants of this fear emerged, the com-

mon story goes something like this:large populations of people with littleknowledge of or interest in Americaarrived. These groups, unlike earlierwestern European immigrants, werelikely to be the dregs of society. Illiter-ate, diseased, or morally suspect, thesesouthern and eastern Europeansthreatened to pollute and dilute thehomogenous stock of America. Thesearguments were recycled in public cir-cles. For example, Stockwell (1927)wrote: “This prospective tide [of immi-grants] included several millions ofpeople from the slums and ghettoes ofthe Old World; it included vast num-bers of the diseased and the decrepit,of hopeless cripples, and of the men-tally deficient. This deluge of strickenpeople … would have caused nationaldisaster” (p. 745).Complicating this rather grim pic-

ture was the belief that immigrants,with a penchant for radicalism andcommunism, were the primary causesfor social degeneracy (Reimers, 1998).Allegedly prone to rioting, crime, andother suspect behavior in this tale, im-migrants became public scapegoats formany societal ills, perceived or other-wise. For instance, the American Stan-dard, a San Francisco weekly, wouldpublish in 1888: “To hundreds andthousands of ignorant foreigners thathave come to our shores, libertymeans liberty to commit crime, free-dom means freedom to be beastly anddegraded. They contaminate every-thing they touch” (as cited in Streit-matter, 1999). The force of thesenarratives emerges most explicitly inchanges in immigration law. Includingthe establishment of literacy tests, headtaxes, and quotas, restrictive lawshelped ease concerns about the immi-gration crisis and restored a narrativein which America controlled its bor-

369

CSMC FLORES

ders and its identity (Higham, 1955/1994).Interestingly, these traditional re-

strictionist narratives rarely discussedthe problems of Mexican immigration.In large part, such absence is probablylinked to the relative invisibility ofMexicans across most of the country.Prior to the 1920s, little effort wasmade to regulate Mexican immi-gration. Many of the workers in thesouthwest were considered to be tem-porary, rural workers who were plan-ning to go home. However, by the1920s, restrictionist narratives beganto make room for an emerging figure,the Mexican, who crossed both ma-terial and symbolic borders.

The Mexican Peon and ControlledImmigration

U.S. efforts to seal its borders andpopulation attracted significant publicattention throughout the early years ofthe 19th century. However, the nationhad not yet fully debated Mexican im-migration. Journalists and publicfigures highlighted increases in theMexican population, arguing thatMexicans were appearing in placesonce filled by other immigrants. Tay-lor (1931) described the situation:“With the stoppage of European im-migration and the increased labor de-mands of the war the trickle ofMexican immigrants enlarged to astream which ran its course for a dec-ade” (p. 135). McLean (1929) com-mented similarly: “The expansion ofour industries after the War, thegrowth of irrigation projects in thesouthwest, and the quota law of 1924,which barred all cheap labor exceptMexican, have all combined to draw astream of Mexicans from their countryinto ours” (p. 334).

Within these competing tensions,various narratives regarding Mexicanimmigrants emerged. Here, I discusstwo prominent narratives, that of needand that of the Mexican problem. It isimportant to note that while both nar-ratives take the string of restrictions asa starting point, particularly in argu-ments for Mexican immigrants, thesearguments were not new. Instead, asCalavita (1992) explains, U.S. immi-gration policy and labor structure haveoften been in competition. One strat-egy for mediating these tensions was tohighlight the advantages of a new im-migrant population against the per-ceived ills of existing ones.6

Agricultural and industrial busi-nesses working with journalists andpolitical leaders crafted a narrative ofneed in which Mexicans became posi-tioned as an ideal immigrant work-force. Indeed the interest in Mexicanlabor was so great that in some in-stances media characterized employersas fighting over Mexican labor:“Another Mexican war is on, and inthe American Southwest again. Butthis time it is a fight for the Mexican,not against him; the prize of battle isthe strength of his good right arm”(Thomson, 1926, p. 275). Seeminglycognizant of the need to present arhetorical image of Mexicans thatwould not trigger restrictionist con-cerns, journalists and politicians em-phasized a particular characteriz-ation—the peon laborer.Central in a narrative of need, Mex-

icans were rhetorically characterizedsuch that they were seen as meetingthe goals of the nation without bring-ing with them the horrors associatedwith common characterizations ofsouthern/eastern Europeans andAsians. They were constructed as idealin a number of ways. First, Mexicanswere configured as peons, which came

370


to constitute an uneducated laborerwilling to work hard for little money.McLean (1930) described the situ-ation: “growers … have been contentto use the peon … . He has beenprofitable because he has been igno-rant” (p. 54). Second, they were de-picted as an instant and short-termsolution; they were a population to betapped in times of emergency. Third,they were configured as a docile peo-ple, unlikely to strike or to bring withthem radical and un-American ideas.In sum, the narrative of need claimedthat Mexicans were ideal because theyconstituted a controllable workforcesuited to the particular demands ofagricultural labor.That Mexicans constituted peon

labor served at least two goals in thisnarrative. First, peon labor wasdefined as poor, uneducated, andwithout ambition. Peon came to sig-nify an interest in day-to-day life overa desire to get ahead. One writernoted that “Not only do these people[Mexicans] lack shoes, it seems, buteverything else. They have nothingand expect nothing” (“Mexico’s peo-ple,” 1920, p. 68). This perceived lackof ambition in Mexicans made them,in this narrative, particularly well-suited to temporary labor, such as thatneeded in agriculture. Simpich (1920)wrote, “Mexicans are restless. The pe-ons like to ride. Whenever they havesaved money from a few days’ work,they swarm up and down these lines toborder towns … running to and froapparently as aimlessly as the inhabi-tants of a disturbed ant-hill” (p. 68).Further, unlike other undesirable pop-ulations, Mexicans were unlikely tosave enough money either to moveinto semi-skilled positions or to be ableto buy land or other permanent resi-dences in the U.S. (Taylor, 1931).Commenting on their perceived shift-

lessness, Jenks and Lauck (1911/1922)maintained that Mexican immigrantswere not as problematic as Asiatic la-borers: “The Mexicans seem to bewithout much ambition or thrift, arecontent with the wage conditions, andtheir progress [in accumulating sav-ings] in consequence has been slow,much more so than that of theJapanese or Chinese” (p. 227). Theywere a present-oriented people, welearn, whose main goals were “a five-gallon hat, a package of cigarettes, anda bowl of chile con carne” (as cited inThomson, 1926, p. 277). Second, aspeon labor, Mexicans were describedas willing and able to do difficult man-ual jobs, such as picking cotton andgrubbing land. In the common narra-tive, they charged less than Blacks orwhites, and worked more quickly andefficiently. Teague (1928, p. 170) ar-gued:

Mexican casual labor fills the require-ments of the California farm as no otherlabor has done in the past. The Mexicanwithstands the high temperatures of theImperial and San Joaquin valleys. He isadapted to field conditions … . He doesheavy field work—particularly in the so-called “stoop crops” and “knee crops” ofvegetable and cantaloupe production—which white labor refuses to do and isconstitutionally unsuited to perform.

Similarly, Holmes (1929) summa-rized the attractive character of Mexi-cans: “Ignorant, tractable, moderatelyindustrious, and content to endurewretched conditions of life which mostwhite laborers would not tolerate, theMexican peon has proved a greatboon to employers in the Southwest”(p. 617).Further enhancing the appeal of

Mexicans was their purported docility.In general, Mexicans were presentedin the public narrative as agreeable,

371

CSMC FLORES

easily controlled workers. Allegedly be-cause of their Catholicism, Mexicanswere seen as willing and eager to sub-mit to authority (Thomson, 1926).Simpich (1926), writing in the The Inde-pendent, alleged that “it is his docilityand good nature that make the Mexi-can laborer popular with his Americanboss” (p. 239). Similarly, Handman(1931) described the Mexican charac-ter as “docile and timid and painfullyeager to conform. In the main he iswell behaved” (p. 166). This aspect ofMexican characterization was used todistinguish Mexican immigrants fromother immigrants, who became thoselikely to bring radical un-Americanideas with them. Batten (1930)clarified: “Mexican labor in agricul-ture is preferable to any other nowavailable, and certainly introducesfewer elements of social and moraldanger than the Filipino or Porto [sic]Rican” (p. 961). Fears of strikes, riots,and attempts to undermine Americandemocracy could be laid to rest ifMexicans were allowed in, for the verypeon character of Mexican immigrantsmade them interested only in earningenough money to provide for weekendentertainment. Politics and public is-sues were positioned as outside theirframe of reference.Finally, the narrative of the Mexi-

can as the ideal worker relied heavilyon characterizations of Mexicans astied to Mexico and lacking interest in alife in the U.S. Mexican laborers, thenarrative assured, would return toMexico. Slayden (1921) commentedthat “usually … [Mexicans] … goback to Mexico to display or dissipatetheir earnings, for the average Mexi-can is as prodigal as the Negro who is,perhaps, the greatest spendthrift in theworld” (p. 122). Mexicans, as Walker(1929) noted, had a love for their own“patria”: “The alien Mexican for the

most part is not interested in becomingnaturalized. His idea is some time toreturn to his own and beloved Mex-ico—his first and only love” (p. 466).This perceived temporary nature ofMexican immigrants stilled the fears ofan immigrant takeover and further dis-tinguished Mexican immigrants fromother immigrants. And as Sanchez(1993) maintains, there were groundsfor the temporary argument in that aborder culture existed which had anestablished pattern of movement backand forth between the U.S. and Mex-ico. Given arguments in this narrativethat Mexican peons tended to spendwages as quickly as they were earned,the return of Mexicans to Mexico didnot necessarily mean the loss of theirincome, for that money, the narrativeassured, was already spent, often infrivolous weekend entertainment.The narrative of national need

painted a compelling picture. U.S.economic success and growth requireda labor force, but not one that threat-ened national security or identity.Fears of growing numbers of unassimi-lable aliens could be eased with theimportation of a Mexican labor force.Positioned as an ideal temporary laborforce, Mexicans were rhetoricallycharacterized as docile, obedient, andloyal to their Mexican nationality. Un-likely either to foster political unrest orexpect to remain indefinitely, Mexi-cans became a controllable populationthat could be used as a labor force. Atthe same time, this argument was notuncontroverted. For instance, Rowell(1931) maintained that Chinese laborwas preferable to Mexican labor. Heargued: “The Chinese coolie is theideal human mule. He will turn lessfood into more work, with less trouble,than any other domestic animal … .The Mexican peon is racially as alien

372


as the Chinese coolie, and is not sogood a workman” (p. 180).This rhetorical construction, which

relied heavily on arguments of charac-terization, gathered force and appealnot only because it made Mexicanlabor accessible but because it wasable to do so without threatening rhe-torical borders and national identity.The attributes of the peon, as theyappeared in this tale, confirmed con-trol of the population of the U.S. andof the national body. Threats of Mexi-cans invading the nation, particularlyin ways that would potentially shift itsfundamental (racial) identity, werecontained by rhetorical constructionsthat limited any active agentic dy-namic. The trope of the laborer, asconstructed here, “creates body-men,men whose body is a machine-body,that is fragmented and dominated, andused to perform one isolable function”(Palumbo-Liu, 1999, p. 37). The Mexi-can peon was a fundamentally passivecreature manipulated at will. And yet,for all his appeal, he (Mexican immi-grants were generally conceived of asmale) was not universally desirable.Countering this narrative was that ofthe Mexican problem.

Border Breakdown: The MexicanProblem

While rhetorical configurations ofMexicans as docile peons interested intemporary jobs were persuasive tosome audiences, others participated ina different narrative. Contesting theimage of the controllable Mexican, anarrative of the Mexican problem elic-ited social fears and alleged vulner-ability of the nation’s borders.Depicting increased numbers of Mexi-cans and the dangers ostensiblywrought by them, the narrative of the

Mexican problem directed public at-tention to borders and the potentialinfluence of Mexicans on the nationalbody. This rhetorical attention wasprobably related to shifts in the econ-omy. As the U.S. entered into a de-pression and jobs became scarce, theMexican body became an easy target,and those able to marshal economicarguments of scarcity could counterothers claiming labor shortages. Dis-courses of need were more prominentbefore the Great Depression, but thoseparties who favored retention of Mexi-can labor did not uniformly changetheir minds thereafter. Thus, dis-courses of need continued at a lowerstrength even as they were overwrittenby discourses of the Mexican problem.In almost direct contrast to the nar-

rative of need, the Mexican problemdefined Mexican immigration assignificant and out of control. Thisargument occurred in part through de-pictions of allegedly increased num-bers of Mexicans. Commentaries inthe popular press discussed the pres-ence of Mexicans across the country.Economist and labor expert Paul Tay-lor (1931, p. 135) wrote:

The Mexicans are here—from Californiato Pennsylvania, from Texas to Min-nesota. They are scattered on isolated sec-tions along our western railroads inclusters of from two to five families; theyare established in colonies in the agricul-tural West and Southwest which form, inplaces, from one to two thirds of the localpopulation. They have penetrated theheart of industrial America; in theCalumet steel region on the southernshore of Lake Michigan they are num-bered in thousands; in eastern industrialcenters by hundreds.

Similarly, Holmes (1929, p. 616) re-marked upon the increased visibility ofMexicans in places where no one ex-pected them to be:

373

CSMC FLORES

Even cities as remote from Mexico asOmaha, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee nowhave their Mexican quarters. The Mexi-can population of Chicago has recentlyswelled to approximately ten thousand.The growth of the Mexican population inLos Angeles has been phenomenal … .Anyone who has travelled [sic] throughthe Southwest during the last decade can-not fail to be impressed with the greatlyincreased number of Mexicans who areeverywhere in evidence.

These accounts, unlike those inother discussions, commented on largenumbers of Mexican immigrants; hereMexican immigration had to berhetorically defined as immense. Olson(1989) explains that definitions are“strategic responses to situations” andthat their use by rhetors is designed toadvocate “adherence to the particulardefinition and the perspective sponsor-ing it” (p. 131). Most important in thisdefinition of Mexican immigration wasthe practice of drawing attention tothe numbers of Mexican immigrantssuch that they appeared to be every-where. This rhetorical definition ofMexican immigration as significantdrew on existing fears of immigration.Public perception was that the Eu-ropean immigration/race problemshad been largely solved; however,fears that unassimilable and undesir-able aliens might pollute the stock anddilute the character of Americanismhad not disappeared. Thus, these fearscould be easily drawn upon and trans-ferred to Mexicans. Unfortunately, thecommentaries and tropes that hadhighlighted the supposed problems ofdegeneracy, illiteracy, and other formsof pollution could now be transferredfrom the Asian and European menaceto the characters in the narratives ofthe Mexican problem.

The narrative of need relied oncharacterizations of Mexicans as tem-

porary, docile, peon laborers. Interest-ingly, this narrative strategy enhancedarguments by those advocating restric-tion, for when the temporary nature ofMexican immigrants was threatenedby accounts of their increased pres-ence in major cities across the country,fears of a Mexican threat on nationalidentity could be tapped. As onejournalist recounted:

It will prove a real catastrophe if a statewith the remarkable natural resources andadvantages of California allows an insolu-ble alien problem to become fastenedupon it … . there is a real Mexican prob-lem on the West Coast. For the first quar-ter of 1931 it was announced that one ofthe important counties of Southern Cali-fornia, Riverside County, had more Mexi-can than white children born within itsborders. (“The old mistake,” 1931, p. 24)

Strikingly absent from these discus-sions were recognitions of historicalfactors shaping the Mexican popu-lation in the southwest, not least ofwhich was the actual political south-ward shift of the U.S./Mexico borderas a result of the U.S./Mexico war,ending in 1848. A percentage of theMexican population in California, forexample, had roots extending back towhen the land was part of Mexico(Almaguer, 1994).

Importantly, the narrative of needdid not position Mexicans as perma-nent additions to the national popu-lation. Instead, it carefully constructedMexicans as outside of the nationalbody. Critics who worried about thesenewly discovered exigencies couldcome up with a host of biological andcultural reasons that would help ex-plain just why the characteristics ofMexicans precluded them from be-coming an enduring part of America’sfuture. These visitors lacked both thepuritan work ethic and the democratic

374


ideals of American-ness. Mexicans, asdocile and peon, were no more assimi-lable than eastern European or Asianimmigrants. By contesting the tempo-rary dynamic, the Mexican problemnarrative could compel concern. Inthis tale, the nation’s laws, once cham-pioned as progressive acts helping con-trol the rising tide of Europeanimmigration, were positioned as onlypartially effective. Eugenical argu-ments enhanced this narrative by iden-tifying supposed biological differences.The narrative of the Mexican prob-

lem, like the narrative of need, reliedon characterization in its arguments,but the common descriptors of Mexi-cans shifted from docile to diseasedand criminal. The mainstream Ameri-can presses of the late 1920s and early1930s were filled with commentarieson the pervasiveness of social conta-gions. Tales of Mexicans with illnessappeared, and the Mexican threat wasdepicted as both numerical and vis-ceral, as medical and social metaphorswere used. In a typical commentary,Holmes (1929, p. 620) argued:

That the presence of numerous Mexicansin our midst is a constant menace to pub-lic health is shown by an abundance ofevidence. Tuberculosis is common amongthem, and there has been a good deal ofcomplaint on the score of syphilis … . Notinfrequently virulent smallpox, and in afew cases typhus, has been brought in bythe Mexicans.

It is perhaps not surprising that theseattributions of disease to Mexican im-migrants made no mention of the roleEuropean colonizers played in bring-ing these and numerous other diseasesto the continent. Diseases such assyphilis, smallpox, and measles wererelentlessly and carelessly spread byEuropeans to natives, and resulted indecimation and genocide (Churchill,

1997; Stiffarm & Lane, 1992). Whilesuch reports questioned the health-re-lated dangers of Mexicans, othersdrew attention to Mexicans’ purportedpenchant for criminality (“Alien sentto prison,” 1930). Such was the casewith Los Angeles newspapers, whichdescribed the condition of a detectivewho was “critically wounded” after be-ing shot by a Mexican alien(“Detective shot,” 1931, p. 9;“Mexican offender,” 1931).The emphasis on dangers, especially

those contained in the Mexican body,is strikingly reminiscent of allegationsleveled at other immigrant popula-tions. Consistent across this discourseis the fear, not just of the numbers ofimmigrants, but of the threat to thenation. These undesirable immigrantswere invested with social powers ofchange; they threatened racial purityand superiority. Here again, the rhe-torical use of characterization was cen-tral as the discourse surroundingMexican immigrants, across bothdominant narratives, constructed aforeign body, distinct from and dis-tasteful to an American body. Theemphasis on disease, in particular, po-sitioned Mexican immigrants as repro-ductive bodies that would potentiallyinfect that national body. As such, dis-ease metaphors are an effective meansthrough which to express border vul-nerability, for the diseases spread inways that cannot always be regulated.Further, as Ono and Sloop (2002) ex-plain, they necessitate a legislative re-sponse, such as expulsion. Theseconfigurations of Mexicans servedrhetorically to generate concern overMexican immigration. The Mexicanbody, racialized as other, was con-structed such that Mexican immi-gration threatened the nation, itsborders, and its people.

375

CSMC FLORES

Closing the Gate: Restrictions,Deportations, and Illegal Aliens

By 1930, attention to Mexican im-migration was firmly established in thepublic domain. Those participating inthe narrative of the Mexican problememphasized two main issues: 1) Howto prevent future immigration?; and 2)What to do with the Mexicans alreadyliving in the U.S.? Strategies for theprevention of immigration generatedconsiderable attention. Debates overthe restriction of Mexican immigrationwere already taking place (McLean,1929; “The Mexican conquest,”1929). Many simply urged greater at-tention to and enforcement of avail-able laws (Batten, 1930; McLean,1930; Thomson, 1927).Concerns over the existing popu-

lation drew more complex answers,reflective of the tensions between thetwo prevailing narratives—need andproblem. When Mexicans could beconsidered temporary workers, theymay have crossed the physical bordersbut not the social borders of the Amer-ican civic polity. As long as [white]Americans were known to be workerswho refused to work like peons, thenMexican labor was necessary. Andsuch arguments were part of the publicconversation. Taylor (1931), quoting afarmer, illustrates: “I would ratherhave Mexican tenants than either Ne-groes or whites. You can’t tell thewhites so well what to do. They thinkthey are on an equality [sic] with you”(p. 136). Curiously, these conversationsrarely addressed inherent contradic-tions, such as arguments over theavailability of jobs for Americans ver-sus arguments that only Mexicanswould accept certain jobs. Yet thepresence and increasing visibility ofMexican immigrants required a greatdeal of psychic and social support for

the creation of new borders or forstricter enforcement of the physicalborders between the U.S. and Mexico.These rhetorical creations would helpauthorities deal with past, present, andfuture immigration policies, and theywould help with the surveillance ofMexicans who were already living inthe U.S.Civic leaders and regional planners

engaged in rhetorical acts to createclearer borders between the U.S. andMexico, between Americans and Mex-icans, often relying on the strict en-forcement of existing immigrationlaws. However, these strategies ad-dressed only part of the Mexican prob-lem, as considerable attention wasbeing directed at the “brown tint”spreading across the country (McLean,1931; Rowell, 1931; “The old mis-take,” 1931). Mexican immigrationwas defined as a national issue, en-couraging all Americans to be on thelookout for foreign invaders. Con-trolling these various borders necessi-tated a series of performative acts toreduce the numbers of Mexicans inthe U.S. While various strategies wereadopted, here I focus on three: 1) thecriminalization of Mexican/Ameri-cans; 2) the deportation drive; and 3)the creation of a hostile climate. Whilethese strategies often overlap, I separ-ate them here for purposes of dis-cussion.In a move that would have con-

siderable impact, not only at the timebut in much future discourse on immi-gration, Congress passed a law in 1929making undocumented entry a felony(McLean, 1930). For Mexicans, thislaw would dramatically change the dy-namics of immigration. Prior to thelate 1920s, little regulation of Mexicanimmigration existed (Taylor, 1930).Instead, Mexicans were often ex-empted from the enforcement of re-

376


strictionist policies, such as the headtax and the literacy laws (Hoffman,1974), and border patrols paid littleattention to the crossings of Mexicans(Balderrama & Rodrıguez, 1995).7

Thus, large Mexican populations ex-isted in the U.S. and especially acrossthe southwest (Sanchez, 1993); manyof these had no formal papers for theyhad migrated at times in which suchformalities were ignored. These prac-tices changed with the criminalizationof undocumented border entries.Criminalization also occurred

through the media campaign of U.S.Secretary of Labor, William N. Doak,in which he stressed economic andsocial arguments. Doak, who easilyequated many types of immigrationwith criminality, asserted in the publicpress that immigrants were responsiblefor many of the nation’s dilemmas,including crime, communism, drug ac-tivity, and unemployment (Jackson,1931). This was not an atypical argu-ment; it was voiced by many others(Lewis, 1931). Newspapers proclaimedthat laws against “foreign criminals”and “imported vermin” would bringrelief as they indicated efforts to con-trol the border (“Alien ‘dope’ dealers,”1931). This language was not exclusiveto representations of Mexicans, butalso appeared in later discourse, suchas during the Holocaust (Perry, 1983).In the case outlined here, headlineslinked immigrants and criminality withsuch proclamations as “Alien criminalbans speeded” (1931) and “Alien dopebill given Hoover” (1931). Concernedcitizens also joined the debate. Forinstance, one letter to the editor as-serted that criminal immigrants were“more of a menace to ourland … than the threat of any war”(Jones, 1931, p. 12). Another letterwriter maintained that “fully 80 percent of the criminals and paupers of

the entire country are either foreignersor the children of the first generationof these foreigners” (Grubbs, 1931,p. 12). Attention to criminality washeightened on January 5, 1931, whennewspapers stressed Doak’s requestthat Congress “provide automatic de-portation for any alien convicted of amajor crime” (Lewis, 1931, p. 1).Headlines carried Doak’s allegationthat “there are 400,000 aliens now inthe U.S. unlawfully, and that of thisnumber 100,000 are deportable” (ascited in Lewis, 1931, p. 1). Supportingthis position was the rhetoric advocat-ing cleansing the nation of commu-nism through deportation, againlocating evil on the immigrant body(“Ask alien,” 1931). Such argumentsciting communism were undoubtedlylinked to attacks on labor unions, con-sidered by some to be fostering com-munism via arguments on unfair laborpolicies (Jacobson, 1998).The emphasis on criminality and

the criminalization of entry combinedto provide a rhetorical space in whichthe Mexican body became a criminalbody. Virtually gone were referencesto Mexicans as peons, as docile, asnecessary farm labor. Replacing thisdiscourse was a narrative in whichMexicans occupied the space of crimi-nal. These reports helped to character-ize Mexicans as threatening thephysical safety of Americans. Becausedocility was so central to the narrativeof need, Mexicans had to be radicallyreconstructed into criminal anddangerous. For instance, reports ap-peared of Juan Cortez, arrested fordrunkenness and carrying a loadedgun (“Alien sent,” 1930) and of Detec-tive James Beck, presumably white,fighting for his life after being “shotdown by a Mexican” (“Detectiveshot,” 1931, p. 9).

377

CSMC FLORES

Also adding to the criminal natureof Mexicans were those accountsequating criminality with illegal entry.The language of “alien” and “illegalalien” appeared in late 1930 and early1931 with regularity. Headlines an-nounced “Ban aliens” (1930),“Detective shot by alien” (1931), and“Alien criminal bans speeded” (1931).Here, the significance of the criminal-ization of entry is clear, for it wasthrough this move that the figure ofthe illegal alien was invented.Configured as “stealing in as burglarsmight enter our homes,” immigrantsbecame criminal/illegal aliens(“Illegal-alien,” 1931, p. 1). Their theftincluded the taking of jobs and otherlimited resources from deservingAmericans (“Veterans favor,” 1930).The inherent ambiguity surround-

ing the construction of the Mexicancriminal is rhetorically powerful.Criminality here carries a range ofpossible meanings or causes, from un-documented entry to theft of jobs topotential drug and gang activity toalleged murder. The emphasis on thecriminality of entry, however, allowsfor linkages between Mexican andcriminality such that Mexican immi-grants become almost inherently, evennaturally, criminal simply by virtue oftheir migration to the U.S. Rationally,there are considerable differences be-tween the newly criminal act of undoc-umented entry and murder or drugactivity. The ambiguity in the catch-allterm “criminal,” however, allows thecriminal nature of Mexicans to betapped whenever rhetorically needed,constituting Mexicans as potentiallysignificant threats.With immigrants, and particularly

Mexicans, framed as criminal illegalaliens, deportation was not only un-derstandable, it was necessary. Draw-ing again on the national deportation

campaign spearheaded by Doak andmade spectacular through headlinesannouncing that 100,000 deportablealiens were within the U.S. (Jackson,1931), Los Angeles officials and mediaengaged upon their own deportationdrive. Announcements of co-operationbetween Los Angeles political and le-gal officials and the U.S. Departmentof Labor appeared in the local press(“Deport aliens,” 1931).In the early stages of the drive, me-

dia emphasis was placed on economicsand crime as the reasons for deport-ation, which was offered as a means ofsecuring jobs for unemployed Ameri-cans.8 For instance, one article notedthat “The Independent Order of Vet-erans of Los Angeles today went onrecord as favoring the deportation ofall aliens residing in the United Statesillegally as a jobless relief measure”(“Veterans,” 1930, p. 3). Readers werenotified of an emergency joblessnesssituation in the country that requiredaction on immigration (“House ac-tion,” 1931). President Hoover enteredthe narrative as he “added a vigorousalien deportation drive to the immi-gration restriction policy adopted toconserve employment for Americanlabor” (“Hoover pushes deportations,”1931, p. 4). Drawing on the need to“protect American workmen,”(“House action,” 1931, p. 4), theconflation of criminality and residencestatus positioned Mexicans as part ofthe problem and the solution.Deportation was initially outlined

as intended only for “undesirablealiens” (“The Hearst,” 1930, editorialpage). That such language wasused without definition or referencesuggests that the language ofdesirability was already well ensconcedin the public imaginary. As theMexican government responded nega-tively to announcements of wholesale

378


deportations, the Los Angeles mediawere quick to announce that the de-portation efforts were neither raciallymotivated nor capricious. On January30, 1931 W. E. Carr, District Directorof Immigration, explained:

It has never been the policy of the StateDepartment to direct its activities againstany one race … . we are going to deportaliens convicted of crimes first, rather thanhonest laboring men who may be techni-cally illegally in this country. (Cited in“Mex. stirred,” 1931, p. 1; see also “Denyplan,” 1931, p. 1)

As announcements of the drive con-tinued (“U.S. and city,” 1931), the linebetween criminality and unlawful en-try blurred. A mere five days afterCarr’s assurance that those honest la-borers who might be technically illegalwould not be the focus of the drive, L.A. co-ordinator for the citizens’ com-mittee on relief of unemployment, C.P. Visel, conflated criminality with il-legal entry: “Aliens become deportablethrough such acts as illegal entry,Communistic activities and com-mission of certain crimes” (as cited in“Outline drive,” 1931, p. A4). By midFebruary, reports of success in the de-portation drive appeared; these reportsnow only referred to entry and citizen-ship. The Los Angeles Evening Express, inan article entitled “13 aliens arrested;Nabbed on suspicion of having en-tered United States illegally,” listed thenames of the 13, 12 of whom wereMexican (“13 aliens arrested,” 1931,p. 3). Similarly, the Los Angeles Heraldreported on the successful arrests: “Ina drive to round up and deport aliensillegally in the United States, federaloffices and deputy sheriffs today ar-rested 13 men who were held pendinginvestigation of their status as to citi-zenship” (“Drive to deport,” 1931, p.A4). Both reports, along with listing

the names of the arrested, highlightedthe areas of the city where the arrestswere made. Soon after, it was reportedthat “one out of every twenty-threeforeigners investigated is illegally resid-ing in the country … [thus] nightlyraids on foreign quarters will be con-tinued … until a systematic search ofthe county is completed” (“Sheriff be-gins drive,” 1931, p. 16; see also“Arrest 200 aliens,” 1931). The crimi-nalization of entry and residence statuscontinued throughout February, withresidence status and undesirable com-ing together: “With 13 assertedly un-desirable aliens in custody the drive bylocal and Federal officials against hun-dreds of persons declared to be in thiscounty without authority continued to-day” (“13 aliens held,” 1931, p. 11; seealso “Congress body,” 1931). Almostwithout exception, Mexicans were sin-gled out in newspaper accounts:“hundreds of aliens, mostly Mexican,were illegally residing here [Los Ange-les]” (“Drive on aliens,” 1931, p. 6).This media attention to Mexican

bodies also served in the third strategyfor generating a rhetorical border, thecreation of a climate of hostility andsurveillance toward Mexican/Ameri-cans that impelled many, regardless ofresidency status, to leave. McLean(1931) maintained that the threat ofdeportation was a powerful impetus:“Many [Mexicans] have been living infear for months lest some day a uni-formed man call at the door, or theybe stopped upon the street. For themthe strain has become unbearable”(p. 183). How exactly did this processwork? Certainly publicity of the scopeof the drive along with the repeatedlisting of names and nationalities ofthose arrested contributed to the senseof surveillance. In addition, subtle andexplicit threats appeared in newspaper

379

CSMC FLORES

accounts. For instance, one newspaperreported:

A survey has shown the peaceful exit ofdeportable aliens would release many jobsfor legitimate residents and urges foreign-born Americans and those with first pa-pers to assist in speeding the departure ofdeportable aliens of the same race on theground that since they must go sooner orlater now is a good time. (“Ousting ofaliens,” 1931, p. 5)

Journalists highlighted potential legalchanges in the processing of possibledeportation cases, including deputizingfield agents with the power to signwarrants of arrest for deportation.Added to this publicity were reports oflaws banning aliens from public em-ployment and owning a residence inLos Angeles (“Illegal-alien,” 1931).Details of the efforts of PresidentHoover and Congress to strengthendeportation laws became commontopics (“Alien-ousting bills,” 1931;“Hoover pushes,” 1931), as did reportsof bills restricting immigration to 10percent of existing figures(“Immigration cut approved,” 1931;“New alien ban,” 1931). Further, pro-posals for registration and finger-print-ing of all immigrants entered thepublic domain (“Alien deportation,”1931). Finally, employees at welfareand charity agencies contributed to thecreation of a hostile climate, encourag-ing Mexican/Americans to leave be-fore they could be officially deportedand barred from any future re-entry(Hoffman, 1974). Bogardus (1933)found this strategy to be particularlyeffective: “Many Mexican immigrantsare returning to Mexico under a senseof pressure … . It takes only an insin-uation from a welfare official in theUnited States to create widespreadfear among Mexican immigrants”(p. 174).

While the deportation drive re-ceived considerable publicity, rela-tively few arrests occurred. Hoffman(1973) notes that 110 Mexican nation-als were deported during the drive. Bythe end of 1931, between 50,000 and75,000 Mexican/Americans had leftLos Angeles for Mexico (Hoffman,1973). At the end of the decade, ap-proximately 500,000 Mexican/Ameri-cans had left the U.S. The disparitybetween 110 deportations and 500,000“voluntary” departures draws atten-tion to the rhetorical dynamics at play.It seems that the threat of deportation,largely perpetrated in mediated discus-sions, was a mobilizing factor. Fromvarious sides and groups came a simi-lar message; alliances among police,immigration officials, political leaders,veterans, social service organizations,concerned citizens, journalists (includ-ing those writing for the Spanish lan-guage paper La Opinion), and even theMexican government enabled thisconsistent support of repatriation. Ap-proximating what Condit (1994)identifies as “singularizing,” this dis-course simplified complex histories, at-titudes, needs, and social problems byequating Mexican, immigrant, andcriminal.By the early 1930s, the Mexican

body came to signify illegal alien and,potentially, every Mexican/Americanbecame a walking target. Both whitesand Mexicans knew that brown bodieswere suspect and foreign. Both Englishand Spanish language papers reportedthe indiscriminate arrests of Mexican/Americans, and tales of deportationsof citizens and those lawfully in theU.S. were common. While such re-ports might have drawn attention tothe problematic nature of the deport-ation drive, they also legitimated apublic accusation of Mexican/Ameri-cans. The effects of such fears were

380


calculated in the significant loss ofbusiness among those sections of thecity heavily populated by Mexican/Americans.This characterization of Mexicans

as illegal aliens carried significant rhe-torical force. Drawing on multiple nar-ratives, the characterization connectedeconomics, crime, and existing stereo-types. Economic arguments pervadeddiscussions of Mexican immigration,and various groups and individualsvoiced their concerns over the allegedloss of jobs to aliens. City officials par-ticipated too, banning aliens from em-ployment on projects that relied onstate or federal funding. The repeateduse of the term “illegal” then created aparticular kind of immigrant, one whocame only to take jobs or to engage incriminal activities.The redefinition of Mexican immi-

grant away from peon laborer to il-legal alien served in part to reconfigureunemployment so that it was a resultof immigration rather than an econ-omic crisis. This narrative portrayalultimately worked both to encourageanti-Mexican sentiment and to reas-sure the unemployed that their econ-omic distress was being addressed.Such arguments tapped into existinganger among many whites about jobcompetition from immigrants. Reportsof physical and verbal attacks bywhites on Mexican and Filipino work-ers provided further support for theidea that immigrant labor was respon-sible for unemployment among whitesand that such immigrants could bemade to leave their jobs ( “Mexicansagree,” 1931; “Orientals flee,” 1931).

Conclusion

I have traced competing and com-plementary narratives and characteri-

zations of Mexican/Americans as theyemerged in the public media of the1920s and 1930s. My story details re-curring themes that reveal linkages be-tween mediated discussions ofMexican immigrants and prevailingtales of other contested immigrantpopulations. It chronicles, as well, rhe-torical strategies that consistently con-structed Mexican bodies as foreignand often distasteful, if sometimes am-bivalently desirable. The inconsisten-cies in these narratives are intriguing.How do we make sense of these some-times diametrically opposed character-izations, such as notions of Mexicansas docile versus tales of Mexicans asdangerous and criminal? Narrativescholars maintain that public narra-tives are rarely neatly coherent, butare instead often fragmented and con-tradictory, reflecting social contentionsover complex social issues (Goldzwig& Sullivan, 2000). Yet narratives cangain force, Carlson (1991) contends,when elements of competing narra-tives are mixed together such that, forall the seeming disparities, underlyingaspects of coherence appear.Herein perhaps lies a crucial insight

into the larger significance of theseearly stories of Mexican immigrants.While communities debated Mexicanimmigration, some advocating accessto Mexican laborers while otherscalled for strict restrictions, consistentacross these debates was an underlyingargument about the nation and itsmembership. On this question therewas little, if any, debate, at least withregard to Mexicans. The various char-acterizations that emerged across thesetales constructed Mexican character sothat it had no permanent place in thenational body. The alleged attributesof the peon, such as lack of ambitionand docility, run counter to Americanvalues. This seemingly positive narra-

381

CSMC FLORES

tive, which lauds the benefits broughtby Mexicans, poignantly illustratesOno and Sloop’s (2002) argument thatpositive and neutral discourses oftenrely upon essentialist logics. Here, theconstruction of the Mexican peondraws on racial assumptions about dif-ferences between primitive and civi-lized peoples and, in so doing, itprecludes Mexican access to Ameri-can-ness (Sheridan, 2002). Indeed, thenarrative of need strengthens the Mex-ican problem narrative, for it providesfodder for arguments of danger. Thenarratives come together to constructan inescapable dilemma of constantdesire and disgust. One agriculturalboss captured the sentiment as he re-sponded to a Mexican’s job query:“When we want you, we’ll call; whenwe don’t—git [sic]” (as cited inGalarza, 1931, p. 181).Carlson’s (1991) argument that nar-

ratives gain strength when they modifyand extend existing characterizationshelps us understand the contemporarysignificance of these early stories. Tothose who study immigration, thecharacterizations I uncover, such asdocile, diseased, criminal, and illegal,should ring familiar. They continue toprevail today, providing motivationsfor such policies as California’s Prop-osition 187 (Ono & Sloop, 2002). Thisconsistency in constructions of immi-grants merits sustained attention, par-ticularly from those interested inimmigration and in critical mediastudies. The ease with which theseconstructions appear suggests that theyhave become deeply embedded withinthe cultural commonsense. Today, asin the past, the visual imagery of theillegal alien can instantly evoke argu-ments for restriction and deportation(Ono & Sloop, 2002). Because the veryterm “illegal alien” equates Mexican,foreign, and criminal, its use marks the

suspect Mexican/American body asbeing fundamentally outside the na-tional body. The threat of deportationis a powerful rhetorical force. Thisthreat, captured in the idea of theillegal alien, creates a vulnerability andexploitability. Suspect bodies carry theborder on them. These bodies, evenwhen present at physical locationsquite distant from the geopolitical bor-der, are susceptible targets (Chang &Aoki, 1998). The rhetorical force reliesupon widespread public participationin the construction and definition ofthe illegal alien. Here, again, the cen-trality of mediated narratives is madeclear, for unless publics have opportu-nities for social conversations aboutthese invaders, they have limited cul-tural resonance. Common images ofdark figures darting across the border,such as those used in commercials byproponents of Proposition 187, cap-ture this sense of danger (Mehan,1997), inviting publics to contribute tosocial surveillance and control.The force of these lingering con-

structions emerges also through thatwhich is rarely named—race. Thenarratives surrounding Mexican immi-gration in the 1920s and 1930s framedthe discussion in language that was, onits surface, non-racial. Arguments ad-dressed economics, labor needs, dis-ease, and criminality. These rhetoricalstrategies hid the underlying racial ar-guments that surrounded immigration.This framing of attitudes toward im-migration as centered on questions ofnational strength rather than on racehad serious implications at the time.Most notably, it allowed communitiesacross the country to participate inefforts to exclude forcibly and coer-cively a population they had, in manyways, invited in. But even moresignificantly, the explicit separation ofrace and nation in public commen-

382


taries, which occurred prior to thisperiod and extends to the present, hasprovided rhetorical space for construc-tions of citizen and foreigner that beliereliance on legal definitions of citizen-ships. Through these racialized cate-gories, the nation has engaged in suchacts as the internment of thousands ofJapanese Americans in the 1940s, thedeportation of over a million Mexi-can/Americans in the 1950s, the mili-tarization of the U.S./Mexico border

in the 1980s, and the recent spate ofCalifornia-led legislation such as Prop-osition 187 and Proposition 209.9 Ineach of these instances, the nation par-ticipated in the symbolic shifting ofborders, containing the undesirable byregulating their access. The histories ofthese enactments of nation should pro-vide reminder enough of the necessityfor continued scholarly attention to theintersections of race, nation, and im-migration.

Notes

1 While contemporary language might indicate the appropriateness of terms such as Chicana/o orLatino/a, that language was not part of the public vocabulary in the time periods discussed here.Thus, in this essay I use the terms Mexican, Mexican American, or Mexican/American as neutralidentifiers of nationality. Mexican(s) refers specifically to Mexican citizens and Mexican American(s)to U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. The term Mexican/American(s) includes both Mexican nationalsand U.S. residents and citizens of Mexican descent.

2 Citing concern over growing unemployment among Americans, the Los Angeles police depart-ment and city council identified immigrants, specifically illegal immigrants, as taking jobs that shouldgo to Americans (“Unified effort,” 1931). While the potentially racially-inclusive term “American” wascommonly used, critics speculate as to its implied racial specificity, noting that tactics employed in thedrive targeted Mexican/Americans irrespective of residency status (Guerin-Gonzales, 1996).

3 Throughout the 1930s, Mexican repatriation occurred across the country with the most intenseefforts in the early 1930s. Hoffman (1974) notes that from September 1930 to August 1932, Mexicanrepatriations exceeded 6,000 per month. In each succeeding year numbers dropped considerably sothat by 1935 annual figures were approximately 15,000 and by the end of the decade were less than10,000. Unlike deportation, repatriation was not necessarily a governmental affair. Instead, individualcities, counties, and states designed and implemented their own efforts. Most repatriation campaignsincluded various groups, such as individuals, welfare agencies, and local businesses. Incentivesincluded greatly reduced and even free transportation into Mexico and money for food during thetrip. Most accounts indicate that the Mexican government supported repatriation efforts, co-operatingwith many U.S.-based efforts and promising assistance (Guerin-Gonzales, 1996). Most Mexicansreturned either by train, in their own cars, or by foot. However, in some instances, Mexicans werereturned by ship and air.

4 Because of the distinction between formal deportation and “voluntary” repatriation, figures varywidely. Monroy (1999) gives the totals from Los Angeles at around 35,000, while Balderrama andRodrıguez (1995) give 1,000,000 as a conservative national figure.

5 Following common practice in whiteness studies, I intentionally do not capitalize white.6 For instance, Takaki (1989) argues that as Chinese labor fell out of favor, it was replaced by

Japanese labor, which was then replaced by Filipino labor. Arguments about the (un)desirability ofthese immigrant groups were recycled, and there was considerable overlap between arguments for andagainst various Asian laborers and Mexican workers.

7 While the 1848 war between Mexico and the U.S. established the currently agreed upon nationalborder, little attention was paid to it. Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, and the impetus forits establishment was the desire to regulate Chinese immigration, not Mexican immigration (U.S.Department of Justice, 1952). Thus, even the establishment of the border patrol did little to regulateMexican immigration. And while distinctions between documented and undocumented Mexicanimmigration existed, efforts to ensure only documented immigrants entered the U.S. were minimal at

383

CSMC FLORES

best. As Taylor (1930) explained, Mexican immigration was “unrestricted until 1929” (p. 612).Simpich (1926) provided more insight, noting that the extent of the border and the limited resourcesavailable to patrol it made for easy entry.

8 The racial motivations of the drive emerge in part through the arguments over job shortages.Guerin-Gonzales (1996) notes that Mexican/Americans were often identified by relief roles and mostof those on relief were citizens and long-term residents whose children were citizens. Their legal statusdid not protect them from arrest or coercion.

9 For details on internment, see Takaki (1989), on deportations of Mexicans in the 1950s, seeGarcıa (1980), on the militarization of the border, see Dunn (1996), on recent California legislation,see Ono and Sloop (2002) and Moran (2000).

References

13 aliens arrested. (1931, February 14). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 3.

13 aliens held after big drive. (1931, February 16). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 11.

700 repatriados reciben pasajes gratis. [700 repatriates received free fares.] (1931, April 2). La Opinion,p. 2.

Alien criminal bans speeded. (1931, February 21). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 4.

Alien deportation. (1931, February 11). Los Angeles Times, part 2, p. 4.

Alien dope bill given Hoover. (1931, February 16). Los Angeles Examiner, p. 22.

Alien “dope” dealers. (1931, February 21). Los Angeles Examiner, editorial page.

Alien-ousting bills favored. (1931, February 21). Los Angeles Times, part 1, p. 2.

Alien sent to prison for gun. (1930, December 2). Los Angeles Record, sect. 2, p. 1.

Almaguer, T. (1994). Racial fault lines: The historical origins of white supremacy in California. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Arrest 200 aliens. (1931, February 27). Los Angeles Record, p. 14.

Ask alien communist ban. (1931, January 10). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 1.

Balderrama, F. E., & Rodrıguez, R. (1995). Decade of betrayal: Mexican repatriation in the 1930s.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Ban aliens on all city jobs. (1930, November 25). Los Angeles Record, p. A2.

Batten, J. H. (1930). New features of Mexican immigration: The case against further restrictivelegislation. Pacific Affairs, 3, 956–966.

Bennett, W. L., & Edelman, M. (1985). Toward a new political narrative. Journal of Communication, 35,156–171.

Bogardus, E. S. (1933). Mexican repatriates. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 169–176.

Calavita, K. (1992). Inside the state: The bracero program, immigration, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge.

Carlson, A. C. (1991). The role of character in public moral argument: Henry Ward Beecher and theBrooklyn scandal. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 38–52.

Chang, R. S., & Aoki, K. (1998). Centering the immigrant in the inter/national imagination. La RazaLaw Journal, 10, 309–361.

Chuman, F. F. (1981). The bamboo people: The law and Japanese-Americans. Chicago: Japanese AmericanResearch Project/Japanese American Citizens League.

Churchill, W. (1997). A little matter of genocide: Holocaust and denial in the Americas 1492 to the present. SanFrancisco: City Lights Books.

Cole, C. L. (1978). Chinese exclusion: The capitalist perspective of the Sacramento Union, 1850–1882.California History, 57, 8–31.

Cole, R. P., & Chin, G. J. (1999). Emerging from the margins of historical consciousness: Chineseimmigrants and the history of American law. Law & History Review, 17, 325–364.

384


Condit, C. M. (1987). Democracy and civil rights: The universalizing influence of public argumenta-tion. Communication Monographs, 54, 1–18.

Condit, C. M. (1994). Hegemony in a mass-mediated society: Concordance about reproductivetechnologies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11, 205–230.

Congress body approves new Filipino curb. (1931, February 17). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 1.

Copp, N. (1963). “Wetbacks” and braceros: Mexican migrant laborers and American immigration policy,1930—1960. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1963. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms63-6580.

Deny plan to deport many Mexicans. (1931, January 30). Los Angeles Evening Herald, pp. A1, A16.

Deport aliens to aid employment. (1931, January 29). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 1.

Detective shot by alien fights for his life. (1931, January 26). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 9.

Drive on aliens stirs Mexicans in Los Angeles. (1931, February 17). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 6.

Drive to deport aliens; 13 nabbed. (1931, February 14). Los Angeles Herald, p. A4.

Dunn, T. J. (1996). The militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, 1978—1992. Austin: CMAS books.

Ferguson, R. (1998). Representing “race”: Ideology, identity and the media. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moralargument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22.

Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 52, 347–367.

Fisher, W. R. (1989). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action.Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Fox, S., & McGreevy, P. (2002, October 31). The valley [Electronic version]. Los Angeles Times, part2, p. 3.

Galarza, E. (1931, May 1). Without benefit of lobby. The Survey, 66, 181.

Garcıa, J. R. (1980). Operation wetback. Westport: Greenwood.

Gardner, M. M. (1999). Working on white womanhood: White working women in the San FranciscoAnti-Chinese movement, 1877–1890. Journal of Social History, 33, 73–95.

Goldzwig, S. R., & Sullivan, P. A. (2000). Narrative and counternarrative in print-mediated coverageof Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 215–231.

Gramsci, A. (1980). Selections from the prison notebooks (Trans. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith). New York:International Publishers. (Original work published 1971).

Grubbs, E. C. (1931, March 30). Immigration [Letter to the editor]. Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 12.

Guerin-Gonzales, C. (1996). Mexican workers and American dreams: Immigration, repatriation, and Californiafarm labor, 1900—1939. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gyory, A. (1998). Closing the gate: Race, politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press.

Hasian, Jr., M. (1997). Judicial rhetoric in a fragmentary world: “Character” and storytelling in theLeo Frank case. Communication Monographs, 64, 250–269.

Hasian, Jr., M., & Delgado, F. (1998). The trials and tribulations of racialized critical rhetoricaltheory: Understanding the rhetorical ambiguities of Proposition 187. Communication Theory, 8,245–270.

Handman, M. S. (1931, May 1). San Antonio: The old capital city of Mexican life and influence. TheSurvey, 66, 163–166.

Higham, J. (1994). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860—1925. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press. (Original work published 1955).

Hing, B. O. (1993). Making and remaking Asian America through immigration policy, 1950—1990. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Hoffman, A. (1973). Stimulus to repatriation: The 1931 federal deportation drive and the Los AngelesMexican community. Pacific Historical Review, 42, 205–219.

Hoffman, A. (1974). Unwanted Mexican Americans in the great depression: Repatriation pressures, 1929—1939.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

385

CSMC FLORES

Hofstetter, C. R., & Loveman, B. (1982). Media exposure and attitude consistency about immigration.Journalism Quarterly, 59, 298–302.

Holmes, S. J. (1929, May). Perils of the Mexican invasion. North American Review, 227, 615–623.

Hoover pushes deportations to aid jobless. (1931, February 10). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 2, p. 1.

House action on bill to cut immigration urged. (1931, February 6). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 4.

Illegal-alien bar sought. (1931, January 13). Los Angeles Times, sect. 2, p. 1.

Immigration cut approved. (1931, January 28). Los Angeles Examiner, part 1, p. 2.

Jackson, G. (1931, March 18). Doak the deporation chief. The Nation, 132, 295–296.

Jacobson, M. F. (1998). Whiteness of a different color: European immigrants and the alchemy of race. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Jasinski, J. (1993). (Re)constituting community through narrative argument: Eros and Philia in The BigChill. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 467–486.

Jenks, J. W., & Lauck, W. J. (1922). The immigration problem: A study of American immigration conditions andneeds (5th ed.). New York: Funk and Wagnalls. (Original work published 1911)

Jones, M. L. (1931, March 24). Undesirable aliens [Letter to the editor]. Los Angeles Evening Express,p. 12.

King, D. (2000). Making Americans: Immigration, race, and the origins of the diverse democracy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Kirkwood, W. G. (1992). Narrative and the rhetoric of possibility. Communication Monographs, 59, 30–47.

Lewis, F. (1931, January 6). Move to deport 100,000 aliens! Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 1.

Lewis, W. F. (1987). Telling America’s story: Narrative form and the Reagan presidency. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 73, 280–302.

Lopez, I. F. H. (1996). White by law: The legal construction of race. New York: New York University Press.

Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant acts: On Asian American cultural politics. Durham: Duke University Press.

Lucaites, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (1985). Re-constructing narrative theory: A functional perspective.Journal of Communication, 35, 90–108.

Lucaites, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (1990). Reconstructing � equality� : Culturetypal and counter-cul-tural rhetorics in the martyred Black vision. Communication Monographs, 57, 5–24.

McGee, M. C., & Nelson, J. S. (1985). Narrative reason in public argument. Journal of Communication,35, 139–155.

McLean, R. N. (1929, August 14). A dyke against Mexicans. The New Republic, 14, 334–337.

McLean, R. N. (1930, April). Tightening the Mexican border. The Survey, 64, 28–29, 54–56.

McLean, R. N. (1931, May 1). Goodbye, Vicente! The Survey, 66, 182–183, 195–197.

Mehan, H. (1997). The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics ofrepresentation. Discourse & Society, 8, 249–270.

Mex. stirred by L. A. alien stand. (1931, January 30). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 1.

Mexican offender deported. (1931, January 25). Los Angeles Times, sect. 2, p. 7.

Mexicans agree to give up jobs. (1931, January 10). Los Angeles Times, p. 1.

Mexico’s people classified and analyzed. (1920, January 10). The Literary Digest, 64, 68, 72, 74–75.

Meyler, B. (2001). The gestation of birthright citizenship, 1868–1898. States’ rights, the law of nations,and mutual consent. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 15, 519–562.

Miller, J. J. (1994). Immigration, the press, and the new racism. Media Studies Journal, 8, 19–28.

Mondello, S. (1967). The magazine Charities and the Italian immigrants, 1903–14. Journalism Quarterly,44, 91–98.

386


Monroy, D. (1999). Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the great migration to the great depression. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Moran, R. F. (2000). Diversity and its discontents: The end of affirmative action at Boalt Hall.California Law Review, 88, 2245–2352.

Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communi-cation studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375.

New alien ban bill presented. (1931, January 21). Los Angeles Times, sect. 1, p. 3.

Ngai, M. M. (1999). The architecture of race in American immigration law: A reexamination of theImmigration Act of 1924. Journal of American History, 86, 67–92.

Olson, K. M. (1989). The controversy over President Reagan’s visit to Bitburg: Strategies of definitionand redefinition. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 129–151.

Ono, K. A., & Sloop, J. M. (2002). Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and California’s Proposition 187.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Orientals flee city after being stoned by crowd. (1931, February 9). Los Angeles Evening Express, p. 1.

Osajima, K. (1988). Asian Americans as the model minority: An analysis of the popular press imagein the 1960s and 1980s. In G. Y. Okihiro, S. Hune, A. A. Hansen, & J. M. Liu (Eds.), Reflectionson shattered windows: Promises and prospects for Asian American studies (pp. 165–174). Pullman: WashingtonState University Press.

Ousting of aliens will be speeded. (1931, January 29). Los Angeles Times, part 2, p. 5.

Outline drive on deportable aliens at L.A. conference. (1931, February 4). Los Angeles Herald, p. A4.

Palumbo-Liu, D. (1999). Asian/American: Historical crossings of a racial frontier. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Parry-Giles, T. (1996). Character, the Constitution, and the ideological embodiment of “Civil Rights”in the 1967 nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82,364–382.

Perry, S. (1983). Rhetorical functions of the infestation metaphor in Hitler’s rhetoric. Central StatesSpeech Journal, 34, 229–235.

Reimers, D. M. (1998). Unwelcome strangers: American identity and the turn against immigration. New York:Columbia University Press.

Rowell, C. H. (1931, May 1). Why make Mexico an exception? Survey, p. 180.

Rowland, R. C. (1989). On limiting the narrative paradigm: Three case studies. CommunicationMonographs, 56, 39–54.

Saldra otro convoy con repatriados [Another train with repatriates will depart]. (1931, April 12). LaOpinion, p. 1.

Salyer, L. (1995). Laws harsh as tigers: Chinese immigrants and the making of modern immigration law. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press.

Sanchez, G. J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, culture and identity in Chicano Los Angeles,1900—1945. New York: Oxford University Press.

Santa Ana, O. (1999). “Like an animal I was treated”: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US publicdiscourse. Discourse & Society, 10, 191–224.

Saxon, J. P. (2003, January 14). Deportating illegal immigrant clearly legal [Letter to the editor;Electronic version]. Columbus Dispatch, p. 16A.

Shah, H. (1999). Race, nation, and citizenship: Asian Indians and the idea of whiteness in the U.S.press, 1906–1923. Howard Journal of Communications, 10, 249–267.

Sheridan, C. (2002). Contested citizenship: National identity and the Mexican immigration debates ofthe 1920s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 21, 3–35.

387

CSMC FLORES

Sheriff begins drive to expel many aliens. (1931, February 15). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 1, p. 16.

Simpich, F. (1920, July). Along our side of the Mexican border. National Geographic, 38, 61–80.

Simpich, F. (1926, February 27). The little brown brother treks north. Independent, 116, 237–239.

Sink, R. C. (2003, February 16). Stop rewarding those who are here illegally [Letter to the editor;Electronic version]. Los Angeles Times, part 2, p. 17.

Slayden, J. L. (1921). Some observations on Mexican immigration. American Academy of Political andSocial Science Annals, 93, 121–126.

Stiffarm, L. A., & Lane, Jr., P. (1992). The demography of Native North America: A question ofAmerican Indian survival. In M. A. Jaimes (Ed.), The state of Native America (pp. 23–53). Boston:South End Press.

Stockwell, A. W. (1927). Our oldest national problem. American Journal of Sociology, 32, 742–755.

Streitmatter, R. (1999). The Nativist press: Demonizing the American immigrant. Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly, 76, 673–683.

Takaki, R. (1989). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. New York: Penguin.

Taylor, P. S. (1930). Some aspects of Mexican immigration. Journal of Political Economy, 38, 609–615.

Taylor, P. S. (1931, May 1). Mexicans north of the Rio Grande. The Survey, 66, 135–140, 197,200–202, 205.

Teague, C. C. (1928, March 10). A statement on Mexican immigration. Saturday Evening Post, 37, 170.

The Hearst papers advocate. (1930, December 25). Los Angeles Examiner, editorial page.

The Mexican conquest. (1929, June 22). Saturday Evening Post, 201, 26.

The old mistake. (1931, June 20). Saturday Evening Post, 203, 24.

Thomson, C. A. (1926). The man from next door. Century Monthly Magazine, 89, 275–282.

Thomson, C. A. (1927). Restriction of Mexican immigration. Journal of Applied Sociology, 11, 574–578.

Unifed effort to oust aliens being evolved. (1931, January 26). Los Angeles Times, sect. 2, p. 1.

U.S. and city join in drive on L.A. aliens. (1931, February 3). Los Angeles Examiner, sect. 2, p. 1.

U.S. Department of Justice (1952). The immigration border patrol: Its origin, activities, accomplishments,organization, and personnel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Record Group 85,File 56364/41.28, National Archives, Washington, DC.

Veterans favor ban on aliens. (1930, December 17). Los Angeles Record, p. 3.

Walker, H. W. (1929). Mexican immigrants and American citizenship. Sociology and Social Research, 13,465–471.

Warnick, B. (1987). The narrative paradigm: Another story. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 172–182.

White, H. (1987). The content of form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Received April 24, 2002Final revision received November 4, 2002Accepted February 1, 2003

constructing rhetorical borders: peons, illegal aliens

Documents