In the Human Rights in Latin America seminar I took last year, we spent a great deal of time discussing the formulation of universal human rights standards. There are so many rights that have been recognized and established by the international community, and that sound so beautiful. I don’t mean to sound cynical, because I do believe that progress has been made over the last century towards establishing an increasingly respected system of universal rights that provides at least a starting place for dialogue and action. But like so many good things at the international level (labor and environmental side agreements to free trade accords, for example!), in practice they are often little more than words on paper. I could write a litany of the human rights violations I witness and am told of daily in the desert. So many people migrate because their basic human needs are not met within their home countries. And so many meet with such injustice during their journeys, injustice which, tragically, does not end in the desert, but continues all over the country. It is strange to read the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and imagine a world in which every human being was not just entitled to but actually lived with all of the rights listed there…
- Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
My friend Dan was walking in a remote canyon last February when he came across the body of a little girl. Josseline was a 14-year-old from El Salvador who had been traveling with her 10-year-old brother to reunite with their mother in Los Angeles. She became sick during the journey and was left behind by her group. She had wandered for about a week before carefully taking off her shoes, lying down on the canyon floor, and falling asleep. Her cause of death was listed as exposure. Josseline was two months younger than my little sister, and I see her when I look at Laura and wonder what her life would have been like in Los Angeles with the mother she hadn’t seen in so long.
In an essay entitled “The Value of Immigrant Life,” Jonathan Xavier Inda uses Foucault’s concept of “biopower” (the power over life exercised by the state) to describe the way policy pertaining to “illegal” immigration is rationalized. He says that there is a distinction made by the state between those lives that are part of the social body and those that are to be excluded; the former are prioritized, while the latter are expendable. This does not necessarily mean that there is the intent that migrants should die, but that “in order to protect its population, the Border Patrol, and the federal government more generally, is willing to tolerate a few casualties." The state is thus engaged in “distinguishing between those lives that deserve to be lived and those that can be disallowed to the point of death.” While I am sure that no one desired her death, Josseline’s life was seen as expendable, just one of the “few casualties” that are acceptable in the name of “securing the border.” Josseline died because of policies that are in place to purportedly protect U.S. citizens. Like my little sister Laura. The irony of this overwhelms me.
- Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
My friend Dan was walking in a remote canyon last February when he came across the body of a little girl. Josseline was a 14-year-old from El Salvador who had been traveling with her 10-year-old brother to reunite with their mother in Los Angeles. She became sick during the journey and was left behind by her group. She had wandered for about a week before carefully taking off her shoes, lying down on the canyon floor, and falling asleep. Her cause of death was listed as exposure. Josseline was two months younger than my little sister, and I see her when I look at Laura and wonder what her life would have been like in Los Angeles with the mother she hadn’t seen in so long.
In an essay entitled “The Value of Immigrant Life,” Jonathan Xavier Inda uses Foucault’s concept of “biopower” (the power over life exercised by the state) to describe the way policy pertaining to “illegal” immigration is rationalized. He says that there is a distinction made by the state between those lives that are part of the social body and those that are to be excluded; the former are prioritized, while the latter are expendable. This does not necessarily mean that there is the intent that migrants should die, but that “in order to protect its population, the Border Patrol, and the federal government more generally, is willing to tolerate a few casualties." The state is thus engaged in “distinguishing between those lives that deserve to be lived and those that can be disallowed to the point of death.” While I am sure that no one desired her death, Josseline’s life was seen as expendable, just one of the “few casualties” that are acceptable in the name of “securing the border.” Josseline died because of policies that are in place to purportedly protect U.S. citizens. Like my little sister Laura. The irony of this overwhelms me.
No comments:
Post a Comment