How do we decide in our own lives who belongs and who doesn’t?
We decide who belongs and who doesn’t based on their ability to adapt/conform to our lifestyle, ideologies and perspectives (to an extent). Some people may enjoy the company of others even if they hold contradicting views but it is the norm that people surround themselves with supportive companions. We decide to eject people from our lives when their attitudes and behaviours incites intense amounts of internal strife to the point where their mere presence creates a sense of dread. That is the extreme but there may be other examples of people being given the silent treatment for reasons much pettier and unsubstantial.
What potential violence is there in drawing lines between those who belongs and who doesn’t?
The structural violence associated with categorising legal and illegal inhabitants is best exemplified by the opportunities people can access, safety, discrimination and stability. Illegal immigrants have little opportunities to work or make purchases on a large number of goods and services as those require a form of identification that they likely don’t have. These purchases/transactions may include loans, a house, a car, a bank account, etc. There low-income is also exacerbated by the inability to sign up for social services such as national insurance, free education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. Furthermore, the only work available for illegal immigrants are those that are low-wage and exploitative as the illegal immigrants have little recourse to report workplace abuse without being deported. The status of being a illegal immigrant means being treated as lesser and not being able to fulfil your potential. Finally, the most physically violent experience that a illegal immigrant may encounter is being forcefully separated from their family and deported back to their country of origin. These raids by immigration authorities have proved to be both mentally and physically damaging. This is especially considering the conditions that illegal immigrants are held in during processing.
More broadly, who constitutes “we”, especially when it’s so difficult to arrive at and locate a common voice, stance or attitude on a given issue?
Unity can take a ideological or behavioural form but the most basic way of organising people around a flag is a passport, a feeling of belonging and/or a long history of residency in that country. A countries population contain a wide variety of opinions on how the government should act in response to certain events, which policies should be prioritised, etc. While these are ubiquitous across many nations, except the most authoritarian ones, a sense of unity is still fostered through national pride and the celebration of a common culture. Even in a nation as diverse as Singapore, long-term residents, Permanent Residents and Citizens or anyone that feels a sense of belonging to Singapore can rally around common cultural aspects such as Hawker centres, Chicken rice, National day, the national sports teams and the flag.
Generally speaking, people most often group themselves based on umbrella concepts under which there are a greater variety of stances and attitudes to conform too. In American Politics, people may align themselves with the republican party but have diverse views on controversial issues such as taxation, the war on terror, abortion, gay marriage, etc. However, they all rally themselves under the elephant emblem.
How does this relate to Home Fire or Langston Hughes?
Home Fire spends a lot of time discussing how first-generation immigrants face discrimination even if they reside in the country legally and being a productive member of society, such as being a PHD student, and having a english passport. Racial profiling overlooks these factors and judges them solely on what is explicitly presented, a brown woman in a Hijab who also happens to have 2 Islamic extremists for a brother and father. Structural violence is also apparent as the British government refuses to repatriate the body of Parvaiz and airport security frequently pulls Isma for additional questioning. While these may not be preventing a person from meeting basic physiological needs, it does undermine their status as a citizen of that country.