Immigration, the internet, and spaces of politics

This paper examines the kinds of politics that are enabled by the Internet with respect to immigrants to the United States; its primary concern is whether the political spaces created through the Internet can foster incorporation of immigrants in the political community or whether the political activity on the Internet seems likely to lead to a more fractionalized political community in which the position of immigrants remains marginal. This exploration is based first on a random sample of web-sites about immigration and second on a more targeted sample of sites aimed specifically at two immigrant groups. The analysis of web-sites indicates that there is a great deal of information about immigrants on the Internet, and that most of it seems to be directed to service providers, policy makers, and researchers. There is relatively little discussion by or about immigrants, and beyond a few notable sites, there is almost no sign of mobilization. To the extent that the Internet is used to create new political spaces, it may not be spaces for deliberation and discussion. Rather, the political spaces seem to be informational spaces in which the politics are not easily or directly read. A-Awda, The Palestine Right to return Coalition, is a broad-based, non-partisan, global, democratic association of grassroots activists and organizational representatives. Our objective is to educate the international community to fulfill its legal and moral obligations vis-a-vis the Palestinian people. Al-Awda develops, coordinates, supports and guides, as needed, global and local grassroots initiatives for action related to Palestinian rights. Al-Awda, http://www.al-awda.org as visited 11 July 2002. “Why I won’t serve Sharon.” “Maaad Abu-Ghazalah, Arab-American Candidate for US Congress, San Francisco.” “A Statement on the ‘War on Terror’ from Prominent Americans.” “What Bush Doesn’t Know about Palestine.” “Memorial to 418 Palestinian Villages Which Were Destroyed.” Headlines on Cafe Arabica, http://www.cafearabica.com as visited 11 July, 2002. The Internet is widely heralded as opening spaces for a wide variety of politics and political voices. But as it is praised for its inclusiveness, it is also pilloried for enabling the fragmentation of political opinion without providing a forum in which common political ground can be identified or consensus achieved. In the former view, the Internet fosters greater inclusion in democratic debate and political community. In the latter view, it contributes to a weakening of the bonds that are necessary for a political community to reach consensus and to provide guidance for democratic governance. Consider the examples in the epigraph to the paper. Al-Awda is a political movement devoted to securing the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their families. It organizes marches and demonstrations in cities across the US and Western Europe. One reason for the apparent mismatch between the locations of the “problem” and of the “action” is that many – though by no means all – of the participants in the marches are immigrants from the Middle East or they are of Arab descent. While the organization is based in Massachusetts, most of the mobilization through it occurs on-line, and it is not clear that there is either a permanent staff or regular meetings, other than the marches. Cafe Arabica provides a venue for discussion of a wide range of topics related to Arab culture and politics. Much like the romanticized cafe society, discussion can be lively and seems to include a wide range of participants and viewpoints. Cafe Arabica includes an on-line discussion forum, again with many of the participants apparently either being from the Middle East or the descendants of immigrants from the region. It labels itself as an Arab-American on-line community. These two web-sites were not chosen at random. They both relate to immigrants – social groups that are often not able to participate in political discussion and debate in their host countries. As such, these sites exemplify both the possibilities and the limitations that commentators have identified when they discuss the Internet and its role in fostering political dialogue. Some people would see these sites as signs of a group that wants to use the political process in one country to influence events in another country. Some people will read these sites as a an indication that at least one immigrant group – if not all immigrants – refuse assimilation, which is the basis of incorporation into the American political community. Still others will view these sites as attempts to incorporate a set of political voices and agents into a more inclusive political community. This paper examines the use of the Internet in political debate and mobilization around immigrants in the United States. It considers the nature of political discussion on the Internet and the agents involved in it. The overarching concern is whether the Internet fosters a more inclusive political community or whether it leads to alternative political spaces that remain unincorporated with respect to the political community of the host society. The paper is organized in four sections. The first provides a background for the debates about immigrants, the Internet, and politics. The second section is an overview of the theoretical debates about the public sphere as a political space in which members of a polity can participate and the ways in which the Internet may transform that space. The third section highlights some of the key issues that condition migrants’ acceptance into a polity, focusing primarily on the United States. With these sections serving as background, the final section of the paper explores political discussion on the Internet by and about immigrants. This exploration is based first on a random sample of web-sites about immigration and second on a more targeted sample of sites aimed specifically at two immigrant groups. The goal in these examinations is to evaluate the extent to which the Internet can provide the basis of a political space in which issues related to the incorporation of immigrants can be debated or whether it is a space that fosters a more fractionalized politics unlikely to lead to greater political incorporation of immigrants.