Against #ResistanceGenealogy: Digging up information about the immigrant ancestors of Trumpsters is doing more harm than good.

Thoughtful critique, both substantively and in terms of effectiveness.

While I too share her initial like of Mendelsohn’s work, in the end, is it meaningful to compare previous immigration periods and patterns when the workforce was less dependent on skilled labour than today’s labour market needs? And does it resonate with those who are on the fence on immigration-related issues?:

I want to love #ResistanceGenealogy, the hashtag and project started by Jennifer Mendelsohn. The journalist and researcher digs up genealogical information on prominent Trumpsters, especially those who are architects and cheerleaders of the administration’s restrictive stance on immigration. Tomi Lahren’s great-great-grandfather forged citizenship papers; Mike Pence’s family benefited from “chain migration”; James Woods’ ancestors fled famine and moved to Britain as refugees. Plenty of liberals applaud Mendelsohn’s finds; others have joined in the project and contributed to the hashtag with their own family stories. She’s gotten coverage everywhere from Politico to Wonkette to CNN.

But #ResistanceGenealogy is fundamentally flawed. Its popularity showcases the left’s inability to recognize how deeply racism is embedded in the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, and to see clearly what the effects of that racism are.

Starting in the 1830s and 1840s, some American abolitionists advocated for a tactic called moral suasion, arguing that surely white Americans who truly knew about the full horrors of slavery would change their minds and fight for its abolition. They tried to promote fellow feeling, telling stories of separation and sexual abuse to play upon Victorian idealization of family togetherness and womanly virtue. This worked for some listeners, but not for others, whose racism and complicity in the system deadened any natural empathy they might have had. Ending slavery took a war.

It feels like we’re making a similar mistake here. Mendelsohn has tweeted that her project is about compassion, and strives for the awakening of empathy. But no extremely moving information about John Kelly’s or Mike Pence’s families from decades ago will make immigration hawks rethink the way they perceive a story like the one about ICE taking an 18-month-old child from his Honduran mother—telling her to strap him into a car seat, and then driving away without allowing her to say goodbye. From an immigration hawk’s point of view, that’s not anyone like their mother, not anyone like their family.

The chasm between the life and experiences of a white American, even one who’s descended from desperate immigrants of decades past, and the life of this Honduran mother is the entire point of racist anti-immigration thought. Diminishment of the human qualities of entering immigrants (“unskilled” and “unmodern” immigrants coming from “shithole” countries) reinforces the distance between the two. People who support the Trump administration’s immigration policies want fewer Honduran mothers and their 18-month-olds to enter the country. If you start from this position, nothing you hear about illiterate Germans coming to the United States in the 19th century will change your mind.

We need to get past the idea that immigration hawks simply don’t know the immigration history of this country.

Besides giving people who rally against immigration too much benefit of the doubt, this comparative approach is ahistorical (purposefully so, since it’s making an argument for the connection between human experiences across time). This, like our reliance on the invocation of the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty, flattens everything out in a way that does nothing to enhance a pro-immigration argument for 2018.

We need to get past the idea that immigration hawks simply don’t know the immigration history of this country. In an influential 1992 article in the National Review, anti-immigration hard-liner and white (excuse me, “civic”) nationalist Peter Brimelow wrote that the restrictive decades between the enactment of restrictive quotas in the 1920s and the 1965 Immigration Act—a time he called “the Great Immigration Lull”—gave the country time to absorb and assimilate the immigrants who came in the early 20th century. (In one surreal passage, he writes, “the American nation was just swallowing, and then digesting … an unusually large and spicy immigrant meal.”)

That 1920s decision to install quotas based on racist pseudoscience, which historians on the left view as a damning episode in American immigration history, was, to Brimelow, a positive story: “[O]nce convinced that their nationhood was threatened by continued massive immigration, Americans changed the public policies that made it possible.” (Jeff Sessions is a fan too.) Brimelow’s 1995 book Alien Nation got positive coverage from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, and so on. Brimelow, and those who think like him, know very well what the history of American immigration was like. They just draw different lessons from it than liberals do.

What about the idea that Americans who benefited from immigration in the past should not “pull up the ladder” after themselves—that they should, knowing their family’s history of struggle and success, give others the chance their ancestors were accorded? Liberals, animated by a sense of fairness, can’t believe that somebody descended from Italian peasants can live with the idea of excluding Syrian refugees today. But what looks like the most galling hypocrisy to liberals seems, to immigration hawks, like self-protective common sense. In one passage, Brimelow mocked the core of the very argument animating #ResistanceGenealogy: “How can X be against immigration when the nativists wanted to keep his own great-grandfather out?” This concept is illogical, Brimelow writes: “This, of course, is like arguing that a passenger already on board the lifeboat should refrain from pointing out that taking on more will cause it to capsize.”

It’s not possible to overcome today’s racist thought on immigration with reminders about past discrimination. The Irish and Italians and Germans weren’t “white” back then, as resistance genealogists like to remind people like John Kelly, but they sure are white now. Since it’s a stated belief of many on the right that a history of discrimination, even a horrific one, shouldn’t matter to a person living in 2018 (see: “Why are black people always talking about slavery?”), it makes little sense to expect that this information about past oppression would move any immigration hawk to defend today’s huddled masses.

One mistake that the left tends to make in engaging in historical fights is to believe the right is simply ignorant and that exposure to more history will change their minds. Liberals do this again and again: writing pieces about Andrew Jackson’s horrific treatment of the Cherokees, issuing correctives about the cause of the Civil War (slavery—it was slavery), telling Kanye to read a book. We seem to hope, all evidence to the contrary, that the real information will get through—and once it gets through, it’ll meet minds that share our moral values and will change accordingly. #ResistanceGenealogy makes all of these assumptions. It gravely underestimates the gulf between these two belief systems. I wish it would work. It won’t.

via Against #ResistanceGenealogy: Digging up information about the immigrant ancestors of Trumpsters is doing more harm than good.

She sees anti-immigration politicians as hypocrites, so she launched ‘resistance genealogy’

Useful reminder that even the “old stock” have ancestors who were immigrants, with a range of characters and behaviours, including non-law abiding. Whether or not reminding those of their immigration history will bring change, on the other hand, is hard to see.

While it is not fair or valid to compare yesterday’s requirements with today (i.e., language), the overall point that we are all immigrants, save for Indigenous peoples, provides context and hopefully, some humility:

On the morning after Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., broke a record for the longest filibuster in the history of the House of Representatives – an eight-hour defense of immigrants – a Baltimore amateur genealogist named Jennifer Mendelsohn sat in her home office and logged onto Ancestry.com to begin her own form of protest.

“Let’s see,” she said, typing in the name of a Republican congressman whose anti-immigrant comments had been controversial. “I was searching for him earlier and thought I might have found something.”

She made a few clicks, going deeper into the past of the anti-immigrant congressman. His family? Immigrants from Norway.

Mendelsohn, 49, is the creator of “Resistance Genealogy,” a term that has suddenly brought her a considerable amount of fame, to which she is still adjusting. And that is, essentially, a tweet-by-tweet exposé on hypocrisy, and a commentary on the stories America tells about itself.

Resistance Genealogy. The concept began several months ago, when Mendelsohn watched White House adviser Stephen Miller go on CNN and tell the anchor that immigrants should be required to speak English.

Something in the statement rankled her, so Mendelsohn, a journalist whose genealogical research had been mostly contained to her own family tree, logged on to a few research databases, then responded with two sentences that were promptly retweeted 17,000 times:

“Stephen Miller favors immigrants who speak English. The 1910 census shows his own great-grandmother couldn’t,” Mendelsohn wrote. She included a PDF of the census document, which specified that Miller’s grandmother spoke only Yiddish.

A few weeks later, Mendelsohn read conservative commenter Tomi Lahren’s assertion that the country needed to punish the “illegal behavior” of undocumented immigrants. Mendelsohn took to her databases, landing on court documents for Lahren’s great-great-grandfather. He’d been born in Russia, and then immigrated to North Dakota, where he was indicted on a charge of forging his naturalization documents.

Mendelsohn went back to Twitter: “Law-abiding citizens like her great-great-grandfather, indicted by a grand jury for forging naturalization papers?” She went viral again.

She wasn’t trying to stir up trouble, she says, so much as she was trying to point out a truth about the history of America: Almost everyone came here from someone else, whether that migration happened one generation ago or six, whether the migration was a hopeful choice or a forced imprisonment. “Spending as much time as I do looking at these documents and looking at family trees – all of those stories go back to a boat.”

In Mendelsohn’s personal history, the boat in question carried her infant grandfather. His parents, a shoemaker and a housewife, boarded in Latvia and eventually settled in New York. Rosie Mendelsohn, Jennifer’s great-grandmother, birthed 10 children and saw all but one die in childhood. Rosie herself died at age 36 from tuberculosis, though when Mendelsohn managed to track down her grave online, the cemetery informed her regretfully that none of headstone’s writing was legible.

“When I think of the opportunities afforded to me over two generations, it’s nothing short of mind-boggling,” Mendelsohn says. “The fact that I can type something on my computer and hot food will come to my door. Or that in 10 minutes I can be at Johns Hopkins and have the best medical care in the world. I am the manifestation of everything (my ancestors) were hoping to do.”

On Mendelsohn’s long to-do list, she recently added: Buy Rosie Mendelsohn a proper headstone.

Partly because her own American story began with her infant grandfather, when Mendelsohn saw conservative Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tweet, “We can’t restore our civilization with someone else’s babies” – “It made me crazy.”

“Congressman,” she tweeted back, attaching papers in the public record from King’s ancestors: “here’s your 4-year-old grandmother arriving steerage class at Ellis Island, 1894.”

When Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson declared that the United States shouldn’t accept immigrants from “failing countries,” Mendelsohn dug up a narrative written by his great-great-grandfather, who said he’d left Switzerland because his prospects there were so limited.

King and Carlson never responded to her findings. Neither did Lahren or Miller. When The Washington Post reached out to all of them for comment, only Carlson called back: “The United States is a completely different country now,” he said. “The idea that (having) a relative who came 150 years ago means I have to have a specific view on immigration? It’s so dumb it’s hard to believe you have to respond to it.”

He continued: “There’s only one question that matters: What’s good for the country in 2018?”

Discussions about what’s good for the country have become a flash point: Debates about DACA were at the heart of the government shutdown, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency recently decided to remove the phrase “nation of immigrants” from its mission statement. The new mission statement prioritized “protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

“Part of what’s going on is this incredibly powerful mythologizing,” Mendelsohn says. “People are insisting that, oh, the immigrants of yore, they did everything right. That they came here legally, and walked to school uphill both ways, and learned English immediately. But that’s B.S.! … In 1751, Benjamin Franklin was complaining that the German immigrants in Pennsylvania would never learn to speak English.”

She wants people to interrogate their own histories. If people are unbothered by their own ancestors’ immigration, but opposed to it now – why? What deeper issues have come into play?

Something about her work has spoken to people – particularly to liberal armchair activists who have no political power, but who are looking for ways to apply their own bookish skills to the cause.

Mendelsohn has been contacted by television producers. Book editors. People wanting her to find their relatives. People wanting to know if they are her relatives. One local artist sent her an email, “I feel really inspired to create a visual project on the work you do”; another man asked whether she ever did “non-political, non-adversarial genealogical research,” which she took mean that he just basically wanted help locating distant cousins.

“This poor girl emailed me asking me for a job,” Mendelsohn says, scrolling past another email. “And I’m like, I don’t even have a job.”

Her genealogical research is all done in her spare time, squeezed in between paid freelance writing work and raising two children. Sometimes she’ll trace a famous family tree for hours and decide not to post anything. Her most successful tweets have been the ones laden with irony.

“So Dan,” she wrote in January to Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media who had recently tweeted that it was “time to end chain migration.” “Let’s say Victor Scavino arrives from Canelli, Italy in 1904, then brother Hector in 1905, brother Gildo in 1912, sister Esther in 1913, & sister Clotilde and their father Giuseppe in 1916, and they live together in NY. Do you think that would count as chain migration?”

“Gosh, I love when you slap people with genealogy,” responded one of the 58,000 people who liked the tweet.

Lately, Mendelsohn has been trying to figure out whether to keep going. There aren’t a lot of surprises in this work – every line of inquiry ultimately leads back to the same place: a boat. “I don’t know whether the fact that all these stories end up looking the same is a reason not to do it or a reason to do it,” she says. The sameness of the stories is the through line of America.

“I look at my great-grandmother,” Mendelsohn says. “Literally, she got on a boat for me because she saw something here. How can I look at anyone else and say, sorry, but the door is closed?”

Recently, Mendelsohn was at a party when she learned she had at least one high-profile fan. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, also a guest, said he knew her work – his daughter had introduced him to Mendelsohn’s tweets, he told The Washington Post in an interview.

O’Malley and Mendelsohn talked for a bit, and he later sent an email: “It was an honor to meet you,” it said. “Keep writing. Your country needs you.” It was the best compliment she could have imagined.

Source: She sees anti-immigration politicians as hypocrites, so she launched ‘resistance genealogy’