"Like articles representing the positions of proponents of the measure, those representing opponents constructing the nation as potentially in danger as a result of undocumented immigration."

How do we learn to recognize the damning effects of good rhetorical intentions? And where will we find arguments which escape this trap that permeates the liberal social policy world? Shifting Borders uses an evaluation of the debate over California Proposition 187 to demonstrate how this quandary is best understood by close interrogation of mainstream reports and debates and by bringing to the fore voices that are often left out of mediated discussions.

It is these voices outside the mainstream, so-called "outlaw" discourses, that hold the best possibilities for real social change. To illustrate their claim, the authors present dominant and outlaw discourses around Proposition 187, from television reports, internet chat sites, and religious discourse to coverage of the Los Angeles Times. Their critique ably demonstrates how difficult it is to maintain a position outside the mainstream, but also how important it is for the press, citizens and scholars to actively search out such voices. The findings are organized through a model that provides an innovative method for understanding events and arguments through their rhetorical and communicative construction. In a world where the mediated word defines so much of what we know, Shifting Borders provides a lucid introduction to analyzing the spoken and written word that constitutes political debate in contemporary U.S. culture. In doing so, it makes an important contribution to any future development of progressive political strategy.

Many immigrants to the United States are reluctant to come here. That statement takes many Americans by surprise because we assume that people freely choose to come to this country to make better lives for themselves. After all, what American is unfamiliar with the romantic image of immigrants of yesteryear arriving in New York Harbor, hungry to make their way in the land of opportunity? 

But the United States is not the country it was a century ago. Back then, the institutions of family and religion held together American society, establishing the norms, customs, and obligations that smoothed the gears of self-governance. For this reason, the country had a clear national identity into which immigrants could assimilate. They could adapt their cultural heritage to the American way of life and raise their children to do the same. Sadly, this is no longer the case. 

The march of modernity has dissolved the institutions that supported a cohesive society, giving rise to a radical individualism that devalued the importance of meaning-making relationships. The fallout has included unprecedented rates of loneliness, historical ignorance, excessive materialism, and moral drift. Immigrants can see this in America better than Americans themselves. The advantage immigrants have is that they come from countries that cherish group belonging; they know that without it, an individual cannot live a fulfilling life.  

In The Statue of Libertine, Luma Simms—herself an immigrant from Iraq—argues that we ought to listen to the immigrant perspective and use it as a tool for self-reflection. Drawing from landmark social commentators such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Simms unfolds her argument by sharing her family’s story of coming to America and struggling to make it their home. She also includes firsthand accounts of other immigrants whose experiences underscore how America’s proverbial melting pot has been shattered. 

Her objective is to help us see ourselves through the eyes of the modern immigrant and grasp how far we’ve strayed from the tacit social agreements that made America so strong in the first place. With this understanding, we can begin the work of reviving the institutions that made us a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.