Unruly Immigrants: Rights, Activism, and Transnational South Asian Politics in the United States

by Monisha Das Gupta

In Unruly Immigrants , Monisha Das Gupta explores the innovative strategies that South Asian feminist, queer, and labor organizations in the United States have developed to assert claims to rights for immigrants without the privileges or security of citizenship. Since the 1980s many South Asian immigrants have found the India-centered “model minority” politics of previous generations inadequate to the task of redressing problems such as violence against women, homophobia, racism, and poverty. Thus they have devised new models of immigrant advocacy, seeking rights that are mobile rather than rooted in national membership, and advancing their claims as migrants rather than as citizens-to-be. Creating social justice organizations, they have inventively constructed a transnational complex of rights by drawing on local, national, and international laws to seek entitlements for their constituencies. Das Gupta offers an ethnography of seven South Asian organizations in the northeastern United States, looking at their development and politics as well as the conflicts that have emerged within the groups over questions of sexual, class, and political identities. She examines the ways that women’s organizations have defined and responded to questions of domestic violence as they relate to women’s immigration status; she describes the construction of a transnational South Asian queer identity and culture by people often marginalized by both mainstream South Asian and queer communities in the United States; and she draws attention to the efforts of labor groups who have sought economic justice for taxi drivers and domestic workers by confronting local policies that exploit cheap immigrant labor. Responding to the shortcomings of the state, their communities, and the larger social movements of which they are a part, these groups challenge the assumption that citizenship is the necessary basis of rights claims.

Genres: Nonfiction, LGBT, Academic

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Taylor W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

In her book Unruly Immigrants, Monisha Das Gupta aims to explore the roles of marginalized South Asian minorities within the United States. From the onset of the book, she makes it clear that “This book is about South Asian immigrants in the United States whom I [Das Gupta] characterize as “unruly” in view of their struggle for rights in the face of their formal/legal and popular codification as noncitizens” (4). She observes the undertakings of these “unruly immigrants” through an analysis of seven major South Asian organizations through transnational, intersectional, social, and critical lenses; specifically within this struggle, she highlights feminist, LGBT, and labor clashes. She draws upon previous academic papers and legal documents, such as Supreme Court cases and historical legislation, to support her arguments. Through her utilization of these vast resources, I believe Das Gupta did an excellent job of outlining the struggles of marginalized South Asians within the United States. However, though I found her methodology to be comprehensive and thorough, her writing was overly complicated at times, rendering her work inaccessible to the mass public and, to a degree, forgettable.
One of Unruly Immigrant’s strengths lies within the presentation of the research gathered. The information was put forth in a way that was solid and rational, yet persuasive without being over the top. In addition, I appreciate that Das Gupta chose not to include footnotes along the bottom of each page and rather referenced her comprehensive bibliography at the end of the book, as it allowed for greater fluidity and prevented the disruption of reading that can sometimes be obtrusive. In this manner, her assertions read very cleanly; for example, when arguing for existence of selective deportation based on the backgrounds of domestic violence of South Asian women Das Gupta concisely states “that the state literally erases these women, “tainted by domestic violence,” from the national body by deporting them (2000)” (121).
Furthermore, Das Gupta’s research combined with her methodology raised the credibility of the book overall. Part of the reason why I found her book so compelling is due to the conclusive research behind it by way of her utilization of legal documents, past court cases, interviews, other academic papers, and historical facts. Because of this I, as a reader, was more inclined to believe and trust in her arguments simply because they were so well supported. For instance, when Das Gupta critiques the concept of a “model minority” as propagating “difference” with the bait of “assimilation” (60) she backs her argument up with papers by two different South Asian scholars, Vijay Prashad and Sharmila Rudrappa. In this aspect, her argument feels dependable and rational; it is not as if she has just pulled out concepts from thin air and failed to support them.
Though her arguments were exceptionally well written and well supported, they were also extremely complicated and tedious at times, which makes Unruly Immigrants as a whole inaccessible to the mass public. Even as a university student attempting to critically and attentively interpret her work, I felt that I sometimes lost myself within Das Gupta’s arguments because I could not follow along with her logic or because I forgot which secondary (or tertiary) claim she was referencing. In this fashion, I would argue that her writing style is not geared towards the common community, but rather an academic one. This is particularly a shame since some of the individuals that she specifically discusses within marginalized feminist, queer, and labor groups might have difficulty connecting to Unruly Immigrants which is written about their plights. An example of this occurs when she differentiates between “space makers” and “place takers” and states that “Space makers understand citizenship as a social and cultural institution created by the nation-state. They do not rely on it to address the multiple and intersecting systems of oppression, which, in part, that institutions creates” (55). There are many undefined terms within this statement, such as “nation-state” and “intersecting,” that make it hard to follow for those who lack an academic background and prior knowledge of concepts like the rise of nation-states and intersectionality. Moreover, there are so many subsets of her overarching arguments that they all become jumbled together; ironically, I have difficulty recalling even a couple of these subarguments as there were just so many (i.e. her convincing, yet elusive discussion of transnationalism and the consequent rights that come, beyond those capsulized within citizenship is quite hard to follow).
All in all, I found Unruly Immigrants to be both persuasive and interesting (it’s the first book I’ve read that addresses feminist, queer, and labor issues of South Asian minorities within the United States), but overall forgettable and inaccessible in its complexity to the ordinary reader. I would highly recommend this book to either academics or readers who prefer to ponder complex arguments or are in need of some food-for-thought (for which Unruly Immigrants undoubtedly provides a feast).

[Sanchita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear writing, I enjoyed the distinction between place making and space making organisations.

[Jason H · Rating 5 out of 5]

Coupling her experiences as a feminist activist with an ethnographic examination of South Asian immigrants struggling “for rights in the face of their formal/legal codification as noncitizens” (4), Monisha Das Gupta weaves the radical, transnational tapestry of Unruly Immigrants to contextualize the strategies of the South Asian diaspora’s feminist, queer, and labor organizations and detail the extent to which racially-driven, structural marginalization is manifest in the “lived experiences” (3) of the South Asian community in the United States.

Using the first three chapters largely to establish the nature of domination by the nation-state and the last three to explore, in greater detail, the intersectional nature of specific feminist, queer, and labor organizations, the six chapters of Unruly Immigrants are loosely organized into two halves, each of which are divided topically. As Das Gupta opens her discussion on race-fueled marginalization in the United States, she recalls her experience at the immigration office by noting “the rituals of humiliation--so uncalled for yet so necessary for national identity” (2) as well as a poster, which “states in big, bold letters: ‘You deserve to be treated with professionalism and respect’” (2). Das Gupta’s deft juxtaposition of the image on the wall with the “rituals of humiliation” (2), highlights the veiled nature of structural domination in the United States. Though the nation-state makes an effort to portray itself as home to the “American Dream” (81), its policies ensure the prosperity of the ruling group and the continued exploitation of its immigrant workforce. Underscoring the insidious nature of racial domination, Das Gupta offers the example of an Indian medical student embracing the “model minority” characterization because, as she puts it, it’s better than having “a white woman passing [her] clutch her purse” (28). This anecdote, coupled with her discussion of the Association of Indians in America and their 1976 request for “a separate category in the census” (28), allows Das Gupta to demonstrate the extent to which South Asians are positioned within the paradigm of white and black relations, further obscuring their marginalization. Rather than challenging the nation-state, many embrace this positioning because they accept white Americans as the dominant group and are content so long as they are not categorized as the lowest non-white group. Das Gupta suggests the implications of the acceptance of the “model minority” categorization in her discussion of domestic violence. Because of the pressure to uphold an image that is projected onto them by the dominant group, members of the “model minority” tend to neglect issues that are not in keeping with their characterization in society, leading to culturally-sensitive strategies by feminist groups to address these issues. In this case, the “model minority” label imprisons its members with unrealistic expectations.

As a foil to this acceptance of domination, Das Gupta explores the strategies and motivations of the South Asian diaspora’s activist groups. Highlighting the difficulty for South Asian feminists to find groups that were understanding of their struggle, Das Gupta writes of “SAWA” (111) or “South Asian Women for Action” (111) and their role in establishing an “alternative to white feminist organizations and dominant feminist understandings of issues such as domestic violence” (111). Das Gupta’s discussion on “SAWA” (111) is instrumental in highlighting the race-driven chasm between various women’s groups and the need for South Asian feminists to pursue agendas that serve their unique needs and do not conform to the paradigms of the nation-state. Das Gupta notes the importance of these groups in “their nuanced examination of the differences and similarities between South Asians and other people of color” (111). Das Gupta also underscores the difficulties of queer South Asians in finding groups that were understanding of their uniquely intersectional situation. Finding a lack of sensitivity in both queer communities and broader South Asian communities, queer South Asians were also drawn to SAWA “as a home where the South Asian women’s realities of violence, homophobia, and economic injustice were validated” (139). Das Gupta’s examination of the struggle of South Asian women in the United States and the strategies of feminist, queer, and labor organizations reminds the reader that the colonial past continues to manifest itself in the present. As Das Gupta puts it, “exclusionary practices, far from being inevitable, come out of histories of colonial, postcolonial, and transnational class formations” (158).

[gmg86 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Monisha Das Gupta’s “Unruly Immigrants: Rights, Activism, and Transnational South Asian Politics in the United States” is a thoroughly supported challenge of the source of individual rights as traditionally understood. The work reads as an argument, structured to demonstrate that in what she calls a “transnational complex of rights” (16), migrants can benefit from protections, too. She clearly divides the book into sections that historicize the situation at hand, and then demonstrate the need women, queer, and labor organizations have for transnational rights. I believe that her work is pioneering, in that bestowing ‘rights’ on individuals has historically been thought of as an obligation a state has to its citizens. She is right in identifying our need to rethink ‘rights’ as a concept, but her “transnational complex of rights” requires too many generalizations to be realistic.
Das Gupta’s work has real value in that ‘rights’ is a concept of Western origin that has since been applied to societies across the globe. When thought of in this context, it seems the assumption that this Western idea is uniformly applicable could imply a degree of Western elitism. Perhaps articulating rights in a founding document is not the most effective method of guaranteeing the well being of people the world over, and this principle needs to be readdressed. Das Gupta does so, in arguing that in today’s age of globalization and immigration, there needs to be a veritable source of legal rights that is “mobile” (4), and does not require state citizenship.
Das Gupta prepares the reader to challenge accepted precedents through first outlining the evolution of racial categories and identification in the United States. In her characterization of the process, the groupings we accept today appear totally arbitrary and political, though they go so unchallenged by many. Beginning with this topic not only provides the reader with a context for the rest of her argument, but it also conditions the reader to consider ‘citizenship,’ for example, as just as equally constructed. Accepting the nation-state as central to rights, she argues, is just as arbitrary as needing to categorize all American citizens as either black or white. If we allow entities other than governments to bestow rights on individuals other than their citizens, it is possible for organizations of women, queer individuals, and laborers to experience transnational protection, too.
I take issue with the generalizations “transnational” rights requires. While Das Gupta thoroughly addressed the situation of individuals who do not bear rights because they are reconciling multiple national identities, I thought the situation of those who truly identify with no existing nation—or have been mistreated by the one they are from—was insufficiently discussed. For an argument that primarily criticized the arbitrariness of the current situation, I was surprised that she continued to look towards constructed organizations as sources of rights, as opposed to the world as a whole—the community to which everyone by definition of being human belongs. I do not think it is enough to require that everyone undergo a “space-making” process, finding an organization to associate with instead of a country, to benefit from protection. Simply being a citizen of the world should offer guarantees, as well. A world that bestows rights on its people, I think, is the same equalized world order that Das Gupta hopes to see. It is a world where politically and economically powerful countries cannot exploit others.
Das Gupta argues that the world has too “one-sided” of a perspective on racial identity, citizenship, and rights. She seeks a definition of these terms that is less rigid and more multinational, and recognizes that many citizens of the world are not seeking “rootedness and citizenship” (18). Her argument is clear and well supported, and a unique consideration of the injustice in the modern world. In emphasizing the role modern organizations play in providing rights, however, I believe she falls victim to an arbitrary categorization similar to that which she criticizes.

[Vernice · Rating 5 out of 5]

The comprehensive ethnographies of South Asian immigrant organizations combine with transformative theoretical framework in Monisha Das Gupta’s work, Unruly Immigrants. In highlighting the lived experiences of the members of the organizations and the issues they constantly face and combat, Das Gupta’s book is able to strongly speak to the stories of many Asian immigrants and Asian Americans as complex journeys that reach beyond “national” borders.

With Unruly Immigrants, Das Gupta elaborates on the experiences of South Asian immigrants through different but intersecting perspectives. In one view, Das Gupta connects together the stories of South Asian queer, feminist and labor movements -- all of which are facing particular issues, such as homophobia, domestic violence and poverty, but can be seen as common struggles within the larger South Asian immigrant, or transnational citizen, context. The members of each movement are seen to struggle with their understandings of their identities and their rights within and without the South Asian community. In this struggle, the organization members are able to break down, however slightly, the barriers that bound them to the stereotypes, such as the model minority, that define them and the conditions they are in.

In highlighting the condition of the feminist, queer and labor movements, Das Gupta is able to bring forth a “new” theoretical framework in which to analyze and give credit to these movements and the organizations fighting for progress. As she illustrates the ways in which the movements combat the structures at play, Das Gupta also shows how the stories she captures are themselves the “material” form of this transnational theory. The stories themselves cannot be fixed to a certain identity-based analysis, whether that be “immigrant” or “woman” (or both), as recognized by Das Gupta, and so exist as complex theoretical narratives, the understanding and study of which seemingly still need to be hashed out in greater academia.

With this complex theoretical framework, Das Gupta is able to also redefine the “immigrant” experience from the perspective of the individuals themselves and not by the structures that try to identify them. Transnationality, as Das Gupta describes, does not just enlarge the reach of the “legal” system that immigrants are supposedly bound to but, rather, breaks those individuals away from the ethnocentrism of one country, in order to confront all the structures at play, whether that be patriarchy or racism. This frameworks show immigrants as active figures within their own history, not just the mindless aliens that are drawn to the “light” of America.

In view, Das Gupta does particularly great work in not only creating a framework but one that is past the beginning phases of formation and is already well thought out, at least in the perspective of the immigrants themselves. Das Gupta presents a strong framework that does not rely on American exceptionalism and subsequent push-pull factors. Rather, she is able to really recognize the importance of the larger “-isms” and flush them out from the individual experiences to community-wide issues. One possible critique may be that with the new framework, Das Gupta can unknowingly ostracize those South Asian immigrants, or Asian Americans in general, who have not fully come to understand their identities and the intersectionality of those identities but are subject to and focused on following the system and path to citizenship.

At end, Unruly Immigrants seems to reach out to those who are trying to understand and frame the immigrant experience from the perspectives of the dynamic individuals themselves as well as those interested in breaking down the stereotypes that influence the legalities mitigating immigrants’ everyday lives.

[Jensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Monisha Das Gupta’s Unruly Immigrants: Rights, Activism, and Transnational South Asian Politics in the United States is a analysis and reflection on the strategies employed by South Asian American groups to assert their voices. Gupta provides both personal and firsthand accounts of how South Asian groups were treated and fared in politics and activism. Gupta begins the book with an anecdote of her experience with immigration. She recounts how difficult and frightening immigration can be. At the same time, she expresses how frustrating it was for her. “A deep sense of injustice courses through me. I am ready to explode” (2). Part of her explosion most likely resulted in this book.

I can't agree with all of Gupta’s arguments or her style of writing. However, I do commend her for her writing style. Gupta is very direct and straight to the point. She does not dwell on any literary fluff or irrelevant facts. One of her strengths is writing out her thoughts and experiences in the different activist groups as plain as possible. There are moments where the text becomes very difficult to read because she is so plain. All her thoughts become disorganized and repetitive. Overall though, I appreciate Gupta’s headstrong approach to writing.

One of my criticisms of Gupta’s text is her choice of words and representations. I would not describe the subjects of my text as “unruly”. Gupta has sat in many of these group’s meetings herself. She even describes herself “as an activist” (5). The problem is that she comes off as hypocritical at times. On one page Gupta is praising all the work the activists do and standing with their actions. At other times she is very critical of their actions and rather not associate herself with them. It’s okay to be critical; that’s the point of the book. However, her writing gives off a very confusing representation of the groups and herself.

The content of the book was very rich. She draws from many different disciplines such as feminism, gender and sexuality studies, and south Asian history. She brings in many different examples to show how being a South Asian is a very strange place in the American black-white dichotomy. In one particular section, Gupta describes her experiences talking to a group of South Asian college students. (28) The talk was about the model minority stereotype. One particular graduate student commented that he rather be in the model minority than being in the group who frightens everyone. This particular early part of the book sets the tone for the rest of the chapters.

Although Gupta’s language is strong and often unclear, she presents very interesting anecdotes and experiences. She is able to connect them all into one huge theme of South Asian immigrants. I really appreciated her researching the people and not just the history. This book is a great read for people who really want to learn about the activist groups and their dynamics.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not sure why the other person gave this book a 2 star rating. Very important and useful book that maps out a very intricate political schematic for South Asian groups...

[Mathu Subramanian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good overview of organizing in the South Asian community, but I felt she could've thought her arguments out a bit better.

[Ramani · Rating 5 out of 5]

That's my girl!! This is a must read. Monisha rocks :)And just to be open I am quoted in the book. Go SAWA!

[Robert Perkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I assigned this book to my graduate class. They loved it.