This past December, we joined with churches in the downtown Salt Lake City area to celebrate Las Posadas, the commemoration of the Holy Family’s search for room at the inn. In the brisk weather, we processed around downtown Salt Lake City reenacting Mary and Joseph’s search for room at the inn, cantankerous donkey included. While on our brief journey, we recalled Mary and Joseph’s being turned away from shelter, and in so doing, remembered those in our community, such as undocumented immigrants or the homeless population, who search for shelter but who are turned away.

We used this event to kick-start the “Drop the I Word” campaign here in Utah. We brought this discussion to Utah as a response to divisive and derogatory discourse by political candidates who went as far as to call children of immigrants born in the United States “anchor babies” as if having children was some sort of covert strategy to avoid being deported.

We continued our push towards the elimination of such dehumanizing language by encouraging boards and church councils in the area to consider the pledge to Drop the I Word. So far, the boards at Crossroads Urban Center and First United Methodist Church in Salt Lake City have signed on.

This prompted the Salt Lake Tribune to start a discussion of their policies of how to refer to undocumented immigrants, starting with an article about First United Methodist in Salt Lake City’s pledge to Drop the I-word. They also interviewed those who believe that illegal immigrant or illegal alien are the legally correct terms for someone who is undocumented (even if said person has not been proven to be here through unauthorized means). A group of advocates from Crossroads Urban Center, the ACLU, and the Catholic Diocese met with the editorial board to discuss their newsroom policy. They said that they follow the Associated Press style guide and wanted to be accurate in who they deemed “illegal” versus “undocumented”.

I think we need to have more of these sorts of conversations about language and how the words we use affect other people. We might not like the responses that we get. For instance, in the comments section of the article in the Tribune about First United Methodist’s stance, there were some vitriolic comments about immigration and the language I saw was appalling. But there were also those who applauded First United Methodist Salt Lake and were glad to see that people were taking a stand.

The Drop the I Word message got a more enthusiastic response this past Saturday at the Utah Sub-District Meeting of the United Methodist Churches in the area. There was also a presentation about starting a Justice for our Neighbors clinic here in Salt Lake City to work with our neighbors who need help navigating the profusion of immigration law. This is, of course, only the beginning of creating a more welcoming Salt Lake City for all of our neighbors, but it is a beginning nonetheless. Hopefully this conversation will continue to evolve into positive action. I pray that some day, the difficult conversations we need to have about immigration can happen without either side throwing stones at each other.

__________________________________________

Learn more about Marjorie and the US-2 program here.

As an Anglo female I am sensitive to masculine language. All-male pronouns offend me. If all-male pronouns offend me how much more harmful is the I-word, a word that is meant to be offensive, a word that is meant to say you are different-than and less-than?

I am a US-2 young adult missionary through the General Board of Global Ministries assigned to the Immigration Task Force of the California-Pacific Conference.  I work closely with the Wesley Foundation Campus ministry at UCLA as they have created a safe space for AB 540 DREAM-eligible students. These students are amazing. They have taught me so much about immigration and the many affects it has on people.

Words are powerful. The language we use sends signals. Through conversations I’ve had with students at the campus ministry and relationships I’m building, students have opened up to me and shared some of their stories.  Some of the students have shared their stories about how painful language can be. One student was told by a guidance
counselor that she was “illegal” and therefore could not be helped. Another was
told that because of her status she had no voice. These young people have been
through so much, many have been separated from loved ones and been hurt by
their communities in so many ways. It is through these conversations that I can
see the crucifying of Christ. I see the wounds of Christ in the pain of these
students as they continue to be hurt by teachers, communities, guidance
counselors, the media and sometimes the church.

These words and statements have had such damaging effects on these students. As my relationships have grown with recent and not-as-recent immigrants around me it’s interesting to reflect on how these relationships have shaped me. As these relationships have developed while the I-word bothered me before, now it angers me.

When I read news stories that still use the I-word I find myself not wanting to continue reading. When I hear people use the I-word I visibly cringe. I cringe as I type it, aware of just some of the damaging effects it can have.  How can a person be illegal? How can a
child of God be illegal? I am aware that as an Anglo female I have not felt oppression and discrimination like many of my friends. I have never had anyone call me the I word, because of my skin color it is never assumed I’m not a US citizen. While I have not experienced the pain of the students I am in relationship with I can emphasize and pledge to change the world with them.  I can pledge to not use harmful language and not tolerate this language from others.

This word has done much damage in our communities. It has made people feel less-than and that is not something we as the church should be doing. The word creates an “othering”, it dehumanizes and desensitizes us to the fact that we are talking about other humans, children of God. We are called by God to love all. Part of loving each other is being sensitive to the language we use. When we make a commitment to use more sensitive language we are saying we love all of God’s children and affirm every person as a child of God.

As we are an Easter people, by taking the pledge to drop the I word may we take steps to end the crucifying of Christ through harmful words. May we say we will not continue this “othering” and discrimination in our language. May we see the day when the world is resurrected and God’s beloved community is restored.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Stephanie Kimec is a missionary through the US-2 young adult program of the General Board of Global Ministries of The United Methodist Church. Commissioned in August 2011, she has a dual assignment to the Immigration Task Force of the California-Pacific Annual Conference and the Echo Park Shalom Ministry in Los Angeles.
A native of Virginia, Stephanie is a member of Saint Mark’s United Methodist Church in Midlothian. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk and a Master of Divinity from Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, DC. She can communicate in English and Spanish. While in seminary, Stephanie was a ministry intern in Mount Olivet United Methodist Church, Arlington, Virginia, and took part in mission trips to Guatemala.

As someone who is training to be a historian, I find myself in an awkward position writing to people of faith: it is my job to analyze past events, not to prescribe a course of action.  But as one who is also a person of faith, I believe communities of faith can play an important role to play in dropping the i-word.

The tricky thing about the i-word is that it never actually mentions race. Don’t get me wrong: I am not suggesting that “illegal” is anything less than a racial slur; I only seek to draw attention to an certain peculiarity about the word. It functions as a powerful a racist epithet without ever naming any racial group. While some might claim this as proof that the i-word is not racial at all, I argue its race-neutral character is essential for the i-word to function as a racist name.

How are we to make sense of this paradoxical relationship? On one level, we could explain the i-word as a product of the post-civil rights era. In a period when it is no longer socially acceptable to be openly racist in U.S. society, the i-word enables one to use the language of criminality as code for racism toward immigrants. There is much truth to this argument, but I believe that the i-word is more than simply a derogatory name couched in post-civil rights era etiquette.

The use of the word “illegal” as it pertains to a person’s immigration status also suggests one is does not belong in the United States and is not American. In this way, the i-word also reveals the architecture of how American identity has been constructed.
The i-word is a product of a long, intertwined history of immigration, citizenship, and race in the U.S.

Throughout U.S. history, whiteness has stood as the unquestioned norm for American citizenship, carrying significant implications for immigration.  For example, the 1790
U.S. Naturalization Law, passed only a year after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, declared that only “free white persons” were eligible to become naturalized U.S. citizens. Though no restrictions on immigration were yet imposed, this law, in combination with the legalization of racial slavery, affirmed that the U.S. was a white
republic.  After the Civil War, when emancipation prompted questions about blacks’ legal status in the U.S., Congress passed the 1870 Naturalization Act, which added people of African descent to the list of people eligible for citizenship. The 1870 Act did not, however, eliminate the earlier “free white persons” clause.  In so doing, the 1870 Naturalization Act actually reaffirmed whiteness as the norm for citizenship; blackness just became an exception to the rule.

The black-white character of the naturalization laws did not provide Asian immigrants any basis for citizenship. In fact, the racial undertones in U.S. naturalization law laid the groundwork for Asian Exclusion laws, a set of codes that explicitly restricted Asian immigration to the U.S. from the end of the nineteenth century and were not fully repealed until World War II. Under Exclusion, Asian immigrants were labeled as “aliens ineligible for citizenship.”  With whiteness centered as the norm and blackness as the major exception to the rule of U.S. citizenship, the word “aliens” cast Asians as perpetual foreigners who were unable to assimilate into American society.

Like the i-word, the phrase “aliens ineligible for citizenship” was race-neutral.  It framed
Asian American Exclusion as a cultural issue instead of a racial one.  In the same way, the i-word minimizes questions of race in contemporary immigration discussions by framing it as a problem of law and order. Just as the Naturalization Laws of 1790 and 1870 and the word “aliens” under Exclusion drew a line between who was considered a part of “we the people” the i-word continues to arbitrate who belongs in American society today.  The word continues to privilege whiteness as the standard for citizenship and immigration in the U.S.

Just as the i-word works to define who is and is not American, its use by people of faith creates boundaries between who does and does not belong in our faith communities. When people of faith drop the i-word, we are reminded that no child of God is “illegal.”

Christ is Risen! The mystery of resurrection is upon us in this new session.   As we move into Easter tide we must remember the journey we traveled in Lent.

In the resurrection Christ has conquered death;  a sign for the all that evil of this world is
conquered by the love of God.

It is this same love God has for all people, and we have for each other that inspired many to drop the I-Word for Lent.  Now Lent is over, and the question becomes – How will your Lenten commitment live on in Easter Season?

How will you take your expereince of dropping the I-Word beyond a Lenten discipline and into your daily life?

Here are a few suggestions:

• Pray that the General Conference Passes the Drop the I- Word Resolution
• Write a letter to a General Conference Delegate telling them about your Lenten journey and asking them to Drop the I-Word.
•  Lead the Drop the I-Word Bible Study at your church
• Read God’s Welcome: Hospitality for a Gospel Hungry World
• Do a personal Bible Study

Lastly continue to talk about why the word “illegal” is harmful and inhospitable to our immigration brother and sisiters.

Please comment below with more ideas of how you will continue this discipline post Lent.